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

With empty annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and handles it well by explaining the engine and the concrete transformations: CAI maximization, GC-content harmonization, restriction site avoidance, and ribosomal leader generation. It does not cover edge cases or validation, but the output schema exists to describe return shape.

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?

Three dense sentences carry the action, purpose, algorithmic detail, and availability without filler. The primary verb and resource are front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place.

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 detailed schema, host enum, and output schema, the description provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. It could add validation or failure-mode notes, but nothing essential is missing for correct use.

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%, and every parameter already has a meaningful description, including the host enum and gc_target. The description subtly reinforces gc_target through 'GC-content harmonization' but adds no parameter syntax or value guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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, 'Optimizes,' identifies the resource ('protein (amino acid) or cDNA coding sequence'), and the goal ('maximal recombinant expression yield'). It lists concrete algorithmic operations, and the unrelated dossier/RAG siblings make the distinction easy without opening schemas.

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 makes the usage context clear: use this tool whenever codon optimization for recombinant expression in a target host is needed. It does not name exclusions or alternatives, but the sibling tools are clearly unrelated, so no when-not-to-use guidance is strictly necessary.

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