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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only 'RETURNS: 氨基酸序列', which is useful because no output schema exists, but it does not disclose frame labeling, stop-codon representation, or handling of degenerate/ambiguous bases. That is adequate-but-thin for a tool with annotations carrying the main behavioral burden.

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 tag-style layout (purpose | USE WHEN | ALIASES | RETURNS) is front-loaded and scannable with no filler prose. The alias list is long and partially redundant with the title, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

For a one-parameter, no-output-schema tool this covers the essentials: what it does, the frame scope, and the shape of the return value. Gaps remain around genetic code table selection and translation conventions, but they are small relative to the tool's simplicity.

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 100% for the single required parameter, so the schema already documents 'sequence' as a nucleic acid sequence. The description adds no meaning beyond that — nothing about accepted alphabets, case sensitivity, FASTA headers, or length limits — so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource pair ('DNA → protein translation') and specifies scope ('in all three frames'), which rules out simple single-frame translation. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings like orf_find or protein_digest, so it stops short of a 5.

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 'USE WHEN' line gives a trigger condition (translate a nucleotide sequence into amino acids in all three frames), which implies when to call it. However, it never names an alternative or a when-not case — notably it gives no routing guidance versus orf_find, which also consumes nucleotide sequence and works in frames.

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