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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the exact grafting pipeline (find germlines, merge into acceptor, place parental CDRs) and a reproducibility claim against abnumber/ANARCI. It omits any note about input constraints or failure modes, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the sibling contrast and the reproducibility note. Every sentence carries weight, though the trailing ANARCI/abnumber benchmark claim is the most digressive element.

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, the description needn't explain return values, and annotations cover safety. It explains the method well for a 10-parameter tool, though it leaves the multi-domain behavior and germline-selection interaction to the schema, which is acceptable but not exhaustive.

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 parameters (top, vGene, jGene, cdrDefinition, rankByFrameworks, backmutateVernier, domain) are already fully documented. The description's mentions of closest germline V/J and grafting map onto these but add no syntax or default semantics beyond the schema, 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 (humanize), resource (antibody variable domain), and method (CDR grafting), then spells out the internal steps. It explicitly names and contrasts with the sibling humanize_antibody, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening schemas.

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?

Frames itself as 'the classical humanization route' and the counterpart to humanize_antibody's language model, which gives clear context for choosing between the two. It stops short of an explicit when-to-use/when-not rule or naming conditions that favor one method.

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