get_complex_subunits

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the recursive traversal, the effect of exclude_structures, and the return format (Dict `{count, subunits}`). It stops short of mentioning potential performance/scale implications, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 compact and well organized: a one-line summary followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value; no fluff or repetition.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, parameters, and return type. It could optionally explain the structure of the returned subunits or edge cases, but the current level of detail is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 zero descriptions for parameters, so the description fully compensates: it explains stable_id with a concrete example and clearly defines exclude_structures ('If True, omit structural sub-complexes'). This adds meaningful semantic context beyond the 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 a specific action ('List the subunits that constitute a complex') and adds the key recursive behavior, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_event_participants. The example stable id further anchors the intent.

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?

Usage is implied by the description ('list the subunits that constitute a complex'), but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as get_event_participants or get_entry. No exclusions or 'use this when' language is present.

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