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 detail beyond them: the tool both detects/numbering domains and performs secondary calls (chain type, species, closest V/J germline with % identity), telling the agent more will come back than just numbering. It does not mention failure modes when no domain passes the bit-score threshold, but the output schema carries return structure.

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 front-loaded sentence that leads with the core action and then enumerates the value-adds; every clause carries information. Minor redundancy in spelling out all six schemes, which the enum already lists, makes it slightly longer than necessary.

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 a 9-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage, full annotations, an output schema, and a single required input, the description covers the essential purpose and the pipeline outputs. An explicit note on behavior when no domain is found would complete it, but nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 every parameter (scheme, species, chainTypes, cdrDefinition, assignGermline, bitScoreThreshold, protein) is already documented. The description only restates the numbering schemes and germline assignment, adding no syntax, format, or interaction semantics beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 concrete verb+resource: find antibody/TCR variable domains in a protein sequence and number them. It additionally names the downstream outputs (chain type, species, V/J germline with percent identity), which clearly separates it from siblings like antibody_isotype, antibody_canonical_classes, or graft_antibody_cdrs.

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 rather than stated: an agent can infer it applies to an antibody/TCR protein sequence input, and the numbering-scheme enumeration hints at the choice to make. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or pointer to an alternative tool (e.g. compare_antibodies or antibody_molecule) for related tasks.

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