ebi-pdbe-var_ent_var_id_entity_id_777d29d4

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description's job is to add substance, which it does: it discloses the residue-position remapping behavior and enumerates the returned feature content (variant type, alternative sequence, position, evidence, cross-references, clinical/functional annotations, structural-impact metadata). It does not address the odd idempotentHint=false on what appears to be a pure read, nor whether entities lacking a UniProt mapping return an empty result or an error.

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, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the return-content enumeration placed second. The long list of feature fields is dense but each item conveys real payload information; no filler or repetition of the name.

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?

There is no output schema and only two fully documented parameters, so the description bears the burden of describing the response, which it does thoroughly — mapped accessions, variant features, evidence, cross-references, and structural-impact metadata. Combined with readOnlyHint annotations, an agent has enough to call this correctly and anticipate the shape of the result.

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% and both parameters are documented in the schema, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds modest meaning by explaining that entity_id is the molecule whose residue numbering the results are remapped to, but it does not clarify pdb_id formatting or what happens with entity IDs that have no UniProt cross-reference.

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 UniProt sequence-variation annotations for a specified PDB Entity ID', with the additional qualifier that positions are remapped to the entity's residue positions. This distinguishes it in substance from the accession-keyed sibling ebi-pdbe-unip_var_unip_var_unip_acc_6a476541, but the description never names that alternative, so the differentiation must be inferred.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it should call this when it holds a pdb_id plus entity_id and wants variant data for that entity. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over the UniProt-accession variant tool or the unip_map tool, and no prerequisites (e.g. entity must map to a UniProt entry) are mentioned.

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