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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description then adds genuine behavioral detail beyond that: numbering is ANARCI-based, columns are scheme positions rather than re-aligned blocks, insertions get their own column, and results are reported per V domain. It stops short of describing failure modes for non-antibody input or output size limits.

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?

It is a single dense noun phrase rather than a structured sentence, and the final property list (length, mass, pI, charge, GRAVY, ε280, CDR charge) is a long tail that is hard to parse on first read. There is no wasted content, but front-loading and sentence structure could be better.

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?

An output schema exists, so the lengthy return-value enumeration is partly redundant, but it does anchor the alignment semantics. For a 7-parameter tool with nested `_subject`/`_files` inputs, the description is largely sufficient, though it omits what happens with mixed heavy/light chains and how the `_files` project interacts with `antibodies`.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it explains that alignment columns come from the numbering scheme, which is the conceptual link to the `definition` enum, and that CDRs are reported under that chosen definition. It does not clarify the role of `chain` (heavy vs light) or `include_subject`, which remain schema-only.

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 (compare antibodies side by side) and enumerates the operations performed: ANARCI numbering, column-wise V-domain alignment, per-column CDR calls, agreement counts, and per-domain physicochemical properties. It never distinguishes itself from related siblings such as number_antibody, antibody_position_frequencies, or alignment_agreement, so it falls short of a 5.

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 explains what the tool produces but gives no guidance on when to choose it over alternatives, no mention of a minimum number of antibodies, and no prerequisites (e.g. that chains must be numberable V domains). Usage must be inferred entirely from the output description.

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