ebi-pdbe-similar_ligands_comp_similarity_hetcode_64e4dc75

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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive behavior, so the description's marginal value lies in the similarity semantics it adds: the 60% PARITY threshold and the inclusion of stereoisomers and common-scaffold matches. It does not disclose result size, ordering, or whether results are bounded, which are the traits an agent would still need.

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?

It is one front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the similarity criteria are stated inline. It could have used a second short clause to cover result handling, but nothing present is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description should say more about what the returned component records look like and whether the result set is bounded. It conveys the conceptual result categories well but leaves the agent without enough to predict the response shape or usage context.

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 coverage is 100%, so the single hetcode parameter is fully documented by the schema. The description does not add format details (e.g., case sensitivity, three-letter code conventions) beyond what the schema supplies, so 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Returns chemical components that are similar to the given chemical component') and defines what counts as similar (stereoisomers, shared scaffold, ≥60% PARITY similarity). It does not name or contrast with neighbouring tools such as comp_in or ligand_sum, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiated.

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 when-to-use guidance, no statement of preconditions, and no reference to alternative tools for related component queries. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and the similarity criteria.

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