search_pdb_by_organism

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

The description transparently states what the tool returns: 'Instructions and example queries for searching by organism'. This makes clear that the tool does not perform a search itself but provides guidance. There is no mention of side effects or side effects are not applicable. Given the simple nature of a guidance tool, the description adequately discloses the outcome of invoking it.

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 succinct and well-structured: it states the purpose, what the tool does, the argument, and the return value. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is efficiently written and easy to parse.

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?

The description covers the essential aspects: what the tool does, what input it expects, and what output it provides. For a simple guidance tool, this is sufficient. However, it could be slightly more complete by mentioning the format of the instructions (e.g., are they textual steps, API endpoints, etc.), but given the low complexity, the current level of detail is adequate.

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 single parameter 'organism' is described as 'Organism name (e.g., 'Homo sapiens', 'E. coli')', providing clear meaning and examples. The schema only specifies type as string, but the description adds concrete usage and format, which helps the user understand what to supply. This is better than just the bare 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's purpose: to provide guidance on how to search for PDB entries by organism. It uses a specific verb ('get information') and identifies the resource (PDB entries by organism). However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'query_rcsb_api' or 'get_pdb_entry', which might cause some ambiguity about when to use this tool versus those.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states that it provides guidance on using the RCSB search API, but does not mention any conditions or scenarios where this tool is preferred over the sibling tools. Users are left to infer when they should invoke this tool instead of others.

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