get_rfam_pdb_api_nucleic_mappings__accession__get

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the tool is safe. The description adds that it returns all PDB entries and RNA chains with matched regions, which is useful context. It does not mention any limitations, errors, or pagination, but for a read-only tool with good annotations, this is adequate.

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 description is a single, clear sentence with no extraneous information. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Given a single required parameter, no output schema, and present annotations, the description is minimally sufficient. It covers the basic functionality but could benefit from additional details about return format or typical usage to fully support the agent.

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 parameter is fully documented. The description reiterates 'specified Rfam accession' while the schema says 'Rfam accession or PDB ID', causing a slight inconsistency. However, it does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool returns PDB entries and RNA chains mapping to an Rfam accession, including matched regions. The verb 'returns' and specific resource 'PDB entries and RNA chains' provide clear purpose. It does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like get_mappings_api_mappings__accession__get, but the specificity of RNA chains and matched regions implies a distinct function.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus sibling tools. The description lacks context on prerequisites, alternatives (e.g., get_mappings_api_mappings__accession__get), or typical use cases. Agents would need to infer usage from the name and schema alone.

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