iface_res_ent_interfaces_id_entity_id_49a0e419

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context by describing the payload: per-partner UniProt accession, name, interface residue ranges, and Best Chain ID metadata. This is useful because there is no output schema. It does not cover error behavior or empty-result cases, keeping it below 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core output and then the payload details; nothing is repetitive. The second sentence is somewhat dense but each clause (partner accession, name, residue ranges, Best Chain ID) conveys distinct content. Slightly tighter phrasing would earn a 5.

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 two-parameter read-only endpoint with no output schema, the description supplies the missing return-value structure and safety context via annotations. Parameters are fully documented by the schema. The main remaining gap is the complete absence of usage/routing guidance relative to the many sibling tools.

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% for both parameters, so the schema already carries the semantics (4-character PDB id, numeric entity id with pattern). The description restates the entity ID concept ('specified PDB Entity ID') and implies the PDB id but adds no format, range, or lookup guidance beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 protein–protein interface residues for a PDB Entity ID, specifically PISA-detected contacts with partner proteins. An agent can identify what the tool produces. However, it never distinguishes itself from the very similar sibling ent_iface_res_ent_iface_res_id_e3f93cbf (or bind_sites_ent_bind_sites), so the boundaries between overlapping interface/binding-site tools remain unclear.

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?

The description contains no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance at all. It does not mention prerequisites beyond the required parameters (e.g. that PISA annotations must exist for the entity, or that a valid entity must already be resolved). The agent is left to infer selection purely from the name and description.

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