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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile carries no burden. Beyond that, the description normatively adds only 'RETURNS: 实验设计方案', which is a vague category label rather than actual behavioral context (what the design contains, whether it is deterministic, how expensive the simulation is).

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 description is compact and consistently front-loaded: title, then USE WHEN, then aliases, then returns. No filler sentences, though the bilingual title and alias list are display metadata rather than guidance.

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?

The tool is simple (2 params, 1 required, no output schema), but 'RETURNS: 实验设计方案' does not tell the agent what a design plan includes or how to interpret it, and the 'constraints' parameter is never explained in the description. For an output-bearing analytic tool with no output schema, that leaves a real gap.

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 both parameters are already documented (目标基因/模板 and 约束条件). The description only echoes 'for a target' and adds no format, range, or example detail, 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?

The 'USE WHEN' line pairs a specific verb with a specific resource ('design a qPCR experiment... for a target'), but the compound framing 'Bayesian design / digital-twin PCR simulation' leaves it unclear whether the tool runs a simulation or only produces a design plan, and nothing distinguishes it from PCR-related siblings such as pcr_primer_design or qpcr_ddct.

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?

'USE WHEN: design a qPCR experiment... for a target' gives one positive triggering condition, which is more than nothing. However, it offers no exclusions, prerequisites, or pointers to alternatives, even though closely related tools (pcr_primer_design, qpcr_ddct, primer_tm) exist in the sibling list and the agent must guess which to pick.

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