ebi-pdbe-iface_res_ent_interfaces_id_entity_id_49a0e419

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description contributes beyond that by disclosing data provenance (PISA-detected contacts) and the shape of the returned payload (partner UniProt accession, name, residue ranges, Best Chain ID). It does not mention response format or size, but for a read-only lookup this is solid added context.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the return-payload detail. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess at.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description rightly spends its second sentence enumerating returned fields, which is exactly what an agent needs for this endpoint. The remaining gap is routing: with roughly fifty siblings including a near-identical ent_iface_res endpoint and several interface/complex tools, the description should say when this one is the right choice.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both pdb_id and entity_id fully documented in the schema (including the mmcif 'molecule number' meaning of entity_id). The description restates the entity ID requirement but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Returns protein–protein interface annotations for a specified PDB Entity ID', and narrows scope to PISA-detected contacts. The entity-level focus is clear, but the description never distinguishes this endpoint from the closely related sibling 'ebi-pdbe-ent_iface_res_ent_iface_res_id_e3f93cbf', leaving the agent to infer which interface-residue endpoint to pick.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named. The only usage signal is implicit: the caller must already have a PDB ID plus entity ID, which suggests post-identification drill-down, but that inference is left entirely to the agent.

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