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

The annotations already establish read-only and idempotent behavior, while the description adds valuable context: the data is publicly deposited, curated, feature-annotated, and has clear follow-up behavior for full sequences. There is no contradiction with the annotations. The cryptic 'see the gate's notChecked' keeps this from a perfect score.

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 compact, dense, and front-loaded: main intent first, then filter dimensions, then output shape, then the alternative tool. The category list and examples earn their place, though the phrase 'see the gate's notChecked' is a bit cryptic and could confuse an agent without additional context.

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?

The description is complete enough for an agent to select and call the tool correctly: it identifies what filters are available, what each hit contains, and where to go for deeper data. Since there is no output schema, the explanation of returned fields is helpful. It does not discuss ordering or edge-case response mechanics, but those are not essential for this search-style tool.

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?

The schema already documents all six parameters with 100% coverage, so the extra semantic boost comes mainly from the description's category list and feature examples and its note that categories include E. coli, yeast, mammalian, plant, BAC/fosmid, and phage. This is especially valuable because the category parameter lacks an enum.

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 clearly identifies the tool's action (Browse) and precise resource (curated library of cloning/expression vectors), while enumerating the search dimensions: name, category, length window, and annotated feature. It also differentiates itself from vector_library_get, which exists for retrieving complete sequence and feature-table data.

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 explicitly routes follow-through work to vector_library_get by stating that a hit only contains accession, length, topology, and feature count, while vector_library_get returns the sequence and full feature table. It also explicitly excludes the wrong context: this is a curated public-record set, NOT a vendor catalogue.

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