Search EMDB

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered; the description adds genuine value by disclosing what is returned (resolution, fitted PDBs, UniProt/Pfam cross-refs) and that ranking is relevance-based with no sort control exposed. It does not mention result capping/pagination behavior, but the annotations carry most of the safety burden.

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 action and scope. The second sentence enumerates return fields, which is somewhat redundant given a dedicated output schema exists, but it is compact and skimmable rather than padded.

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 an output schema, full parameter documentation and read-only/idempotent annotations, the description only needs to establish purpose and result character, which it does. The main remaining gap is the absence of any guidance tying this search to the sibling get_uniprot tool for cross-reference workflows.

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% — query examples, limit bounds and resolution_max semantics are all fully documented in the schema — so the baseline of 3 applies. The description mentions resolution in the return payload, which loosely connects to resolution_max, but adds no filtering syntax or format detail 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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Search the Electron Microscopy Data Bank for cryo-EM entries'), which is unambiguous and immediately separates it from the unrelated siblings get_uniprot and search_geo_methylation. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling or boundary, but the domain is so distinct that confusion is unlikely.

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 by the resource domain — an agent infers to call it when it wants cryo-EM map entries. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of how it relates to get_uniprot (e.g., for cross-referenced protein data), and no hint about when to prefer structured Solr syntax versus a plain keyword query.

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