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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds a genuinely non-redundant behavioral trait: the values come from a real algorithm engine rather than LLM generation, which tells the agent the output is deterministic and citable. It omits input constraints (sequence length limits, allowed bases, DNA vs RNA) and any accuracy caveats.

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 definition is short and front-loaded with a bracketed tag naming the operation. It is slightly repetitive, stating the computed-and-returned values (Tm、GC、二聚体) twice in one sentence, but no sentence is wasted.

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 one-parameter, read-only calculation tool this covers purpose, inputs and return values even though no output schema exists. The only gap is the absence of input validity constraints, which matters for a sequence-based computation.

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% and the single parameter is already documented as '引物序列'. The description restates the same meaning ('用户给了引物序列') without adding format, length, or allowed-character constraints, so the baseline of 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 names a specific computation and resource — primer Tm, GC and dimer calculation from a user-supplied sequence — so an agent can identify it without opening the schema. It does not explicitly contrast with the nearby act_primer_design or act_qpcr_ddct tools, which keeps it below a 5.

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 '用户给了引物序列要算 Tm、GC、二聚体' — use it when a primer sequence is already in hand and Tm/GC/dimer values are needed. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no mention that primer *design* belongs to act_primer_design instead.

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