rcsb_render_report

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

The description discloses that rendering uses a fixed server-side template, that the response contains either a url or html never both, and that html is only a fallback to be written to a file. It also warns that a result_type/id mismatch resolves nothing and returns empty derived values, which goes beyond the annotations' readOnlyHint and idempotentHint.

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 long but well-structured into purpose, invocation order, key fields, and return contract. Every section earns its place, and the most important operational guidance (call last, supply facts only, don't write HTML) is front-loaded.

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 tool's complexity and the rich nested schema, the description covers invocation order, input field semantics, failure modes, and the return contract (url vs html plus template_version). The output schema and sibling tool list supply the remaining structural context, making the description fully sufficient for correct invocation.

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?

Even though the top-level schema has 0% description coverage by the given signal, the description thoroughly explains the report fields: title, api_calls with verbatim editor objects, result_type semantics and matching constraints, results with evidence/grounds/interpretation, and data_usage. It adds critical non-obvious constraints such as passing the editor object VERBATIM and the failure mode for mismatched result_type.

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 opening sentence, 'Render a structure-search report as a styled, self-contained HTML page,' names the specific verb, resource, and output format. It is clearly differentiated from the sibling search/get tools by being the final rendering step rather than a data retrieval or search operation.

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 instructs 'Call this LAST, after the searches and rcsb_get_* calls that produce the values shown in the report,' giving clear ordering guidance. It also tells the agent not to write HTML, not to rewrite returned content, and explains how to handle resolver/discovery tools without editor links.

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