rcsb_find_enzyme_classes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the output format (query, count, enzymes with ec/name/pdb_entry_count), the effect of with_pdb_counts, and a pointer to resolver guidance for lineage semantics. It also clarifies the mapping to EC-based searches. This goes beyond what annotations provide, though it doesn't discuss edge cases like empty results or ambiguous queries.

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, front-loading the purpose in the first sentence, followed by usage guidance, parameter semantics, and return format. Every sentence is informative, with no fluff. The use of bullets and concise examples makes it 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 is complete for an AI agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. It explains the tool's role in a larger workflow (EC-based PDB searches), gives concrete query examples, details all parameters, and describes the return structure. It also references server instructions for deeper resolver guidance, filling any residual gap.

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 with an 'Args' section explaining each parameter: 'query: Free-text enzyme / reaction', 'limit: Max EC numbers to return', and 'with_pdb_counts: If true (default), annotate each with pdb_entry_count'. It also includes examples and return format details, adding 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?

The description clearly states the tool resolves free-text enzyme/reaction phrases to EC numbers for precise PDB searches. It uses a specific verb ('Resolve') and resource ('enzyme class' to EC numbers), and distinguishes from siblings like rcsb_find_go_terms by focusing on enzymes and explicitly mentioning 'instead of keyword guessing'.

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 explicitly says 'Use this when a request references an enzyme, enzyme class, or reaction' with concrete examples, and provides workflow guidance ('Resolve the phrase to an EC number here, then search by it'). It does not name alternative tools for when-not-to-use, but the context is clear enough.

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