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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds substantive computational behavior beyond annotations: it computes extinction coefficient and A280 both with cysteines reduced and with every pair formed into a cystine, and it ties results to Fab versus IgG stoichiometry.

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?

It is a single dense sentence that front-loads the outputs and then the chain stoichiometry. Every clause contributes, though the long enumerated list is slightly run-on compared with a more structured presentation.

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?

With an output schema present and full parameter documentation, the description covers what is computed and the key cysteine-state distinction. It does not discuss validation or error behavior, but those gaps are minor for a read-only calculation 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents heavy, light, pH, and format. The description reinforces the format stoichiometry and the pH role for net charge, but mostly restates the schema rather than adding new semantic detail.

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 very specific resource and computation: assembled antibody properties (molecular weight, isoelectric point, net charge at pH, extinction coefficient, A280) from heavy and light chains. The explicit Fab/IgG stoichiometry distinguishes it from generic protein-property siblings like protein_properties.

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?

Usage is implied by the antibody-assembly framing and the Fab/IgG formats, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as protein_properties or compare_antibodies.

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