ebi-pdbe-graph_nodes

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description goes further by describing exactly what comes back for every label: name, human-readable description, and property list with per-property descriptions. It doesn't mention result size, whether all labels are always returned, or any caching/rate limits, which keeps it shy of a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose is front-loaded well, but the text repeats itself: 'This tool can be used to understand...' and 'This tool returns detailed information...' restate the opening sentence, and the bullet list of returned fields is then duplicated nearly verbatim in the worked output example. Trimming one of those two blocks would lose no information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does so with a concrete sample format that an agent can parse. What's missing is scope information (whether all labels are guaranteed to be present, and how the result relates to graph_edges/graph_node_relationships for a full schema picture).

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is no parameter meaning to add. The description's phrasing ('all node types', 'each node label') correctly signals that the tool is unfiltered and takes no arguments, which is consistent with the empty schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieves metadata about all node types (also known as "labels") defined in the PDBe (PDBe-KB) graph database schema.' The node-vs-edge distinction is implicit enough that an agent could separate this from graph_edges, but it never names graph_edges, graph_indexes, or search_schema, so sibling differentiation is not explicit.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It states a use case ('understand the different types of entities ... and then ... explore the graph more effectively by writing Cypher queries'), which gives the agent a reason to call it. However, it never says when to prefer this over the sibling schema tools like graph_edges, graph_node_relationships, graph_indexes, or search_schema, leaving the routing decision to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.