ebi-pdbe-load_structure_annotations

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

Annotations already flag a safe read, but the description adds context they do not carry: the caller is the App rather than the agent, a workspace must already be open (a state prerequisite), and the response contains annotation records and track layers rather than coordinates or a scene. That is meaningful behavioral disclosure beyond readOnlyHint/destructiveHint.

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 critical negative guidance is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the remaining sentences progressively narrow the legitimate use case and output. It is information-dense with little waste, though the opening sentence is long and the 'already open workspace' point is restated slightly differently later.

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?

For a one-parameter helper with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: caller restriction, prerequisite state, sibling routing, and response contents. Nothing material about correct invocation is left ambiguous.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema coverage, including a regex pattern and example (4hhb), so the schema fully documents it. The description adds nothing about pdb_id formatting or validity, which is acceptable given the coverage, leaving this at the baseline.

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 names a specific verb and resource — loading optional PDBe-supplied residue annotations into an already-open workspace — and immediately contrasts it with the structure-opening path. It also states what the tool does not return (coordinates, MVS scene), which sharpens the boundary further.

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 gives an explicit prohibition (never call in response to a user request to open, view, inspect, or show a structure, even by entry ID), an explicit alternative (ebi-pdbe-open_structure for every initial viewing request), and the one legitimate caller context (the App loading annotations into a workspace that is already open). When/when-not/alternative are all present.

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