ebi-pdbe-open_structure

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavior the annotations cannot: only the first coordinate model is displayed, the deposited asymmetric unit is the default, and the call is one-shot because the App loads coordinates asynchronously. It omits what happens on a failed or invalid accession, which keeps it from 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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, with no filler. The closing sentence is slightly redundant ("completes the viewing request" plus "let the App load coordinates"), but that redundancy reinforces an important one-shot behavior rather than wasting space.

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 five-parameter viewer launcher with no output schema, the description covers purpose, default model/assembly selection, and the async completion contract an agent needs to avoid redundant calls. Nothing essential to invoking it correctly is missing.

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%, so all five parameters (including chain_id, assembly_id, include_ligands, include_annotations) are already documented. The description reinforces the assembly_id default ("defaults to the deposited asymmetric unit") but adds no format or interaction detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the load.

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 ("Open an experimental PDB structure in an interactive 3D viewer") and adds the follow-on capability (inspecting chains, ligand instances, residues). This clearly separates it from the many data-retrieval siblings, which return records rather than launch a viewer.

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?

Gives an unusually explicit stopping rule: "A successful result completes the viewing request; stop calling this tool and let the App load coordinates." That is real when-to-use/when-to-stop guidance. It does not, however, contrast itself with adjacent tools such as load_structure_annotations or compare_structures, so the alternative-selection guidance is incomplete.

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