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 useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it names the energy model (Turner-2004) and the returned representation (dot-bracket + ΔG). It does not discuss limitations or edge cases, but for a read-only folding computation this is a helpful addition.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that packs purpose, output format, and method with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a single-purpose computational tool.

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 a full output schema, 100% schema description coverage, and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the remaining essential information: what is computed and how it is represented. Nothing required to invoke the tool correctly 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents seq, _files, and _subject. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when structured fields carry the parameter burden.

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 the exact computation (minimum-free-energy secondary structure), output representation (dot-bracket + ΔG), and method (Turner-2004) for an RNA/DNA sequence. It is specific, though it does not explicitly distinguish this general folding tool from sibling tools such as fold_guide or read_structure.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternatives. An agent can infer that it is used when secondary structure prediction is needed, but the description provides no routing information.

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