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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral note that the result comes from a real algorithm engine rather than an LLM, which signals deterministic output. It says nothing about reading frame, strand, handling of ambiguous bases, or failure behavior on invalid input.

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?

It is short and front-loaded: the tool's function appears first, followed by the input trigger and the return value. The bracketed tag partially duplicates the title, but overall there is very little wasted text.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core input-output contract and even asserts output reliability. It leaves open how frames/strands are chosen and what the output looks like (single-letter string vs FASTA), which matters for correct downstream use.

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?

There is only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('核酸序列'), so the schema already carries the parameter meaning and the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no detail on accepted formats, DNA vs RNA, or character constraints beyond restating that a nucleotide sequence is expected.

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 verb and resource: translate a nucleotide sequence into an amino acid sequence, and it states the return value. Among siblings such as act_sequence_orf, act_sequence_enzyme and act_sequence_plasmid, the translation scope is clear, although no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

The phrase '用户贴了核酸序列要翻译成氨基酸' gives an implicit trigger condition: use this when a user supplies a nucleic acid sequence and wants protein output. There is no guidance on when NOT to use it or which sibling to pick for ORF detection or restriction analysis, so routing relies on the agent inferring from names.

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