rcsb_find_disease_terms

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior; the description adds meaningful context by explaining the MONDO resolution, optional pdb_entry_count annotation via annotation_lineage.id, and the exact return shape. It also points to resolver guidance for attribute path and lineage semantics.

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 well structured with a purpose paragraph, usage guidance, Args, and Returns sections. Every sentence contributes meaning—no filler or redundant repetition of schema defaults.

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 the resolver family context and the output schema being marked present, the description covers input semantics, expected return shape, and next-step guidance ('then search by it'). It is complete for a tool of this complexity.

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%, but the description fully compensates: query defines free-text disease examples, limit explicitly says 'Max MONDO terms to return', and with_pdb_counts explains the default and what pdb_entry_count means. This is sufficient for an agent to populate all parameters correctly.

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 uses a specific verb 'Resolve' with a concrete resource: free-text disease terms to MONDO ontology IDs, explicitly framing the purpose as precise disease-based PDB searches instead of keyword guessing. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling fulltext report and other ontology resolver tools.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use for ANY request mentioning a disease/disorder/syndrome/condition' with concrete example phrasings. It contrasts with keyword guessing but does not name sibling alternatives or exclusions, so it falls just short of a full 5.

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