Get Related Structures

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety bar is met. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: results are sorted by resolution, and the interpretation guidance (many co-crystal structures = rich landscape; apo-only = less evidence) tells the agent what the output means. It stops short of describing pagination or the role of the limit parameter.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then rationale, then workflow placement. The middle paragraph on structural coverage interpretation is slightly expansive but delivers genuine decision value rather than filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers purpose, workflow position, and result interpretation. The one real gap is parameter documentation, which is scored separately, so the description is otherwise complete for this tool.

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 0% and the description never addresses any of the three parameters. It implies target-based lookup (consistent with uniprot_id), but the limit default, the pdb_id option, and how the two identifiers interact are left entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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: 'Find all PDB structures for a target protein', with the ordering by resolution and the scope (all available experimental structures). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like GetBindingSites and CharacterizeTarget, which the description names directly.

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?

Gives explicit sequencing: 'Call this AFTER CharacterizeTarget and BEFORE GetBindingSites'. It also explains the purpose of that placement (to identify which structures to analyze for pockets), so an agent knows exactly when to invoke it in the pipeline.

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