get_pdb_entry

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It transparently states the return format as a JSON string and enumerates the included fields, which is strong for a read-only lookup. It does not mention error handling for invalid IDs or network behavior, but those are minor for this kind of tool.

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 compact, front-loaded, and scannable, with an Args/Returns structure and a bullet list of returned information. Every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter entry lookup with an output schema available, the description covers the input format and the return contents. Nothing essential for calling the tool correctly is missing, aside from sibling routing, which is a usage-guideline concern.

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?

The schema only declares pdb_id as a string, but the description fully defines it as a 4-character PDB identifier with concrete examples ('1ABC', '7BQY'). This adds substantial meaning beyond the raw 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?

States a specific operation ('Get comprehensive information') on a precise resource ('a PDB entry'), and the Returns list clarifies that it provides metadata rather than a file. This distinguishes it from siblings like download_structure_file and get_polymer_entity.

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 intended use is implied by the phrase 'comprehensive information' and the listed return fields, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no reference to sibling alternatives. An agent must infer that search_pdb_by_organism is for finding IDs and download_structure_file is for file retrieval.

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