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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the output list and says nothing about sequence-length limits, which algorithm/constants are used for pI or instability, or the shape of the result set ('等' leaves it open). Useful but thin beyond the 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 piped USE WHEN / ALIASES / RETURNS layout is front-loaded and scannable, with the trigger condition first. The alias list is long and partly redundant with the title, which costs a bit of signal-to-noise.

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 2-parameter, no-output-schema computation tool the description is adequate: it names inputs and outputs. It still leaves the agent unsure of accepted sequence format and the exact return shape, which matters because there is no output schema to fall back on.

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 both parameters are documented in the schema, albeit tersely ('蛋白序列', '蛋白名'). The description adds no format hints (FASTA vs raw residues, single-letter vs three-letter codes, whether protein_name is optional labelling) beyond what the schema already says, so 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?

The description names a concrete computation (molecular weight, pI, GRAVY, instability index) applied to a protein sequence, and the RETURNS line restates the key outputs. It is specific enough to distinguish this from neighbours like protein_digest or protein_ptm, though it never states the operation as a verb (e.g. 'computes').

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 explicit 'USE WHEN' clause gives a clear triggering condition (needing MW, pI, GRAVY, instability index from a sequence). There is no guidance on when not to use it and no named alternative among the protein-* siblings, which keeps it from a 5.

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