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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, but the description goes well beyond safety: it discloses what is exempt from judging (partial ends, /pseudo CDS), the read-through extension behavior round a circular origin, whether an overrun hits another annotated CDS (fusion), and the fold-over-random-backbone comparison. This is unusually rich behavioral context.

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 front-loaded with the core check list and then the exceptions and read-through behavior. It is dense but nearly every clause adds information; a minor cost is its length and the trailing Biopython-parity validation claim, which is more marketing than actionable specification.

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, return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the check semantics, exemptions, and read-through reporting that an agent needs to invoke this correctly, so nothing essential is missing.

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 the schema fully documents genbank, _files and _subject. The description adds only the conceptual framing 'one or more GenBank maps' and does not clarify otherwise-undocumented parameter semantics, 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 (audit/check) and resource (annotated CDS of GenBank maps) and enumerates the exact faults it detects: frame that does not close, internal stop, invalid start codon, missing terminal stop, translation mismatch. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like find_orfs, auto_annotate, and discover_annotation_contradictions.

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 audit framing and the exclusions (partial ends not judged, /pseudo CDS carries no flag), which help an agent know what the tool will and will not act on. However, there is no explicit 'use this when' guidance or naming of alternative tools (e.g. find_orfs, discover_annotation_contradictions), so the agent must infer when to prefer this over siblings.

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