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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: it searches BOTH strands and handles origin-spanning ORFs when the subject is circular. It does not disclose defaults (min_size 300), the size bound, or result shape, but an output schema exists to carry the return value.

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?

One compact sentence with zero filler, and the most important qualifier (both strands) is front-loaded alongside the circular caveat.

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?

Output schema and annotations carry much of the burden, and the strand/circular behavior is a useful addition. However, for a nested-object parameter tool with no required params, the agent gets no guidance on selecting an input form or on how the circular flag interacts with origin-spanning results.

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 min_size and alternative_starts are fully documented structurally; baseline 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already says, though 'circular' in the text hints at the _subject.circular flag.

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 ('Find open reading frames') and scopes it to the subject, which is distinguishable from siblings like find_linear_motifs or find_star_sites. It does not explicitly name a neighboring alternative, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 statement of when to use this versus translate_sequence, infer_proteins, or auto_annotate. Usage is only implied by the tool name; no exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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