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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a critical behavioral trait: the report is sequence-derived only, telling which residues CAN carry an attribute, not which DO in a given lot. It also clarifies that it replaces neither experimental measurement nor criticality ranking, which is important context for an agent.

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 front-loaded: the first sentence defines the tool and its scope, the second explains its role in a workflow, and the third states limitations. It is mostly efficient, though slightly longer than strictly 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 the output schema exists, the description needn't explain return values, but it still provides a summary. It covers the tool's purpose, scope, limitations, and output shape. The main gap is the missing detail on input format and the unmentioned api_key parameter, but for a sequence-based analysis tool, it is largely complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It only briefly describes 'sequence' as 'Protein/antibody amino acid sequence' and does not mention the 'api_key' parameter at all. Format expectations (e.g., one-letter code, plain text) are not specified, leaving significant gaps.

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 states a specific verb (consolidated report) and resource (MAM hotspot report) and enumerates seven modification types covered, clearly distinguishing it from single-attribute siblings like covabio_deamidation or covabio_cleavage_sites.

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?

It explains when to use it (as the site list a MAM peptide-mapping method must cover and the starting point for attribute-criticality assessment) and what it is not (a substitute for LC-MS measurement or criticality ranking). It does not name alternative tools for those excluded use cases, but the boundaries are clear.

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