ebi-pdbe-specific_fafefar_id_4cd60ce4

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful return-content context (ECO evidence codes, release date, source URLs, raw/confidence scores and classification labels), but says nothing about behavior such as missing annotations, error cases, or whether results are paginated.

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?

One tight, front-loaded paragraph with no filler sentences. It is somewhat dense with 'e.g:' examples (ECO_0000053, 01/06/2017, https://prankweb.cz) that are illustrative but add bulk without decision value.

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 correctly explains what is returned, which is what an agent needs here. It is still incomplete for a two-parameter mandatory-filter tool: no indication of valid resource values, result size, or behavior when an entry has no annotations for that resource.

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% — both pdb_id ('4-character PDB id code') and resource ('Origin/resource of the annotation') are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add anything beyond the schema, notably no example or list of valid FunPDBe resource names (0 enums), which is the one gap that would have mattered.

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 all FunPDBe functional annotations ... for a given PDB entry ID for a specific FunPDBe annotation resource.' The scope (PDB-entry level, single resource) is clear, though it never names a sibling such as ebi-pdbe-funpdbe_for_ent_funpdbe_id to distinguish the entry-level call from the entity-level one.

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 exclusions, and no pointer to alternatives. The phrase 'for a specific FunPDBe annotation resource' hints that a resource filter is mandatory, but an agent gets no help deciding between this tool and the many other annotation siblings.

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