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

Annotations only cover readOnly/idempotent/no-open-world; the description adds real substance beyond them: the underlying source (official Allelelist_history.txt, every release since 1.05.0), the default resolutions ('to' defaults to current release; omitting 'from' accepts a name from any release), and the full set of outcome states including deleted with successor and ambiguous alleles. That is exactly the operational context an agent needs for this domain.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and input/output contract, then the usage trigger. Dense but every clause carries weight; the enumeration of row statuses is long and partly overlaps the output schema, which slightly costs it a point.

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?

With annotations covering safety, a 100%-covered schema, and an output schema, the description fills the remaining gaps: input constraints, defaults, sibling routing, and the meaning of every outcome state. Nothing an agent needs 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds semantics the schema does not: what omitting 'from' means (accept any release) and that 'to' defaults to the current release. It does not, however, add format guidance beyond the schema's own examples.

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?

Specific verb+resource with scope: translates HLA allele names between IPD-IMGT/HLA releases via HLA ID. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the routing alternative (normalize_allele for lab shorthand) and by being about cross-release name mapping rather than lookup (allele_info) or release comparison (release_diff).

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?

Explicit trigger: 'Use it when data typed under an older release has to be compared with or reported under a newer one.' It also routes the wrong-input case to a named sibling ('Lab shorthand (B*1501, A*02:XX) belongs in normalize_allele first') and states the input restriction ('Allele strings only, no patient identifiers').

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