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 one genuinely useful trait beyond them: results come from a real algorithm engine rather than LLM generation. It says nothing about input constraints (e.g. sequence length/format limits) or what the map contains.

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 compact clauses with the purpose front-loaded in a bracketed tag, then trigger, then return value. Nothing is wasted, though the telegraphic style leaves some meaning implicit.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, trigger, and return kind, which is close to sufficient. It still omits what the returned map actually contains (annotations, features, image vs data) and any input constraints, which an agent would want before calling.

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% with a single required parameter 'sequence' documented as 『质粒序列』, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no format, length, or validity guidance beyond that, making the baseline of 3 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 the specific action and output: drawing a plasmid map (『画质粒图谱』) to view vector structure (『看载体结构』), and states it returns a plasmid map. That is concrete enough for an agent to distinguish it from sequence-analysis siblings such as act_sequence_enzyme or act_sequence_translate, though it does not explicitly separate itself from act_cloning_design.

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?

It gives an implicit trigger condition ('when the user wants to draw a plasmid map / see vector structure'), which is enough to select it in obvious cases. There are no explicit when-not conditions and no named alternatives for cases like restriction-site analysis or cloning design, where sibling tools would apply.

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