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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavioral context: that boolean filters (starred/archived) and owned_by are unreliable — information an agent could not get from any structured field.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded, zero filler. Mild redundancy in restating the tool title as the opening clause, but the warning is placed where an agent will see it immediately.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be explained, and all nine parameters are documented in the schema. The description covers the one thing the schema cannot: filter reliability. A note on how 'Supported filters' relates to pagination params would close the remaining 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 baseline is 3. The description earns above baseline by flagging filter reliability and enumerating supported filters, but its list omits skip, limit, and workspace_id — arguably pagination rather than filtering, yet it leaves the reader to infer that relationship.

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 and resource ('Retrieve all sequences') with the scoping qualifier 'with optional filtering'. The word 'all' implicitly separates it from the single-item get_sequence sibling, though it never names that sibling 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 'Supported filters' list tells the agent which parameters are meaningful, and the reliability note steers it away from broken filters. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over get_sequence or get_sequence_leads, so routing is only implied.

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