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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'A design/write' only confirms what is structured. It adds real value by describing the design behavior (one oligo per site, single-reaction annealing, codon-usage-based synonymous choice), but says nothing about what the design returns being unsaved, or about failure modes when coverage cannot be satisfied.

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?

Two tight sentences with the mechanism front-loaded and no filler. The trailing fragment 'A design/write.' is terse to the point of being cryptic but costs little.

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 and the schema documents every parameter, so the description does not need to explain returns. However, for a 39-parameter combinatorial design tool it does not warn that default constraints may fail to produce a design, nor point at the two required inputs (CDS, mutation list) that an agent must get right.

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 100%, so all 39 parameters already carry documentation, including defaults, units, and 'Advanced' markers. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond echoing the organism codon table concept; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Design QCLM ... oligos') and adds the defining mechanism: one primer per mutated site, all annealing in one reaction, codons drawn from an organism's usage table. That mechanism implicitly distinguishes it from sibling primer designers like design_mutagenesis_primers and design_saturation_primers, though no sibling is named.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative among the many sibling design_*_primers tools. An agent must infer from 'multi-site' that this is for several mutations at once rather than a single-site mutagenesis design.

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