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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the deterministic algorithm ('most-frequent codon per residue'), which reinforces idempotency. It does not mention that coding DNA is translated in frame +1 up to the first stop codon (a key behavior), though that detail is captured in the input schema's protein parameter description. Overall, it adds some useful context beyond annotations.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the purpose, and contains no superfluous words. It effectively communicates the core function and method in a compact form.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does not explicitly state what the tool returns (presumably an optimized DNA sequence). It also omits how the tool handles ambiguous inputs (e.g., protein-only vs DNA) beyond the 'protein' parameter schema. For an agent to know the invocation's result, this is a notable gap, though the tool's simplicity mitigates it.

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 67%, with detailed descriptions for 'protein' and 'inputType'. The main description adds the term 'expression host' which maps to the 'organism' parameter, but does not further explain the 'organism' enum or default. The schema itself provides sufficient meaning for all parameters, so the description does not need to compensate much.

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 uses a specific verb ('Codon-optimise') with a clear resource ('a protein (or coding DNA)') and states the method ('picking the most-frequent codon per residue'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'reverse_translate' (which does not optimize for a host) and 'codon_adaptation_index' (which computes a score, not an optimized sequence).

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?

The description implies use for host-specific codon optimization ('for an expression host'), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. Sibling tools like 'reverse_translate' are not mentioned as alternatives, and no exclusions are provided.

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