emdb_structure_lookup

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's core behavior: it returns title, authors, resolution, macromolecules, and dates for a given EMDB entry. It does not cover error handling or edge cases, but for a read-only lookup these is acceptable.

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 short and front-loaded with the English purpose. The Chinese sentence repeats the same content, which is somewhat redundant, but it reinforces the input example and intended use case without adding verbiage.

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?

Given a single required parameter, an existing output schema, and no nested objects, the description covers the essential invocation context: what to pass and what to expect. It could mention alternative tools or exact ID format acceptance, but it is adequate for a simple lookup 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?

The schema has no description for emdb_id, so the description compensates by explaining the parameter is an EMDB entry number and providing a concrete example (EMD-1234). This adds the meaning that the bare schema lacks, though format details beyond the example are minimal.

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: 'Look up EBI EMDB cryo-EM structure entry'. It clearly identifies the domain (cryo-EM), the database (EMDB), and the expected output fields (title/authors/resolution/macromolecules/dates), making it distinguishable from sibling structure tools like PDB or AlphaFold.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use the tool: when you need EMDB cryo-EM structure information by EMD number, explicitly including an example input (EMD-1234). It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is specific enough that the intended use is clear.

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