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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful detail about the kind of metadata returned but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as response shape, pagination, or open-world limitations; it stays within the safe lookup framing.

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, front-loaded with the resource and field list, and immediately gives three concrete example questions before routing to the sibling tool. Every sentence adds distinct value without redundancy.

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 read-only metadata lookup with no output schema, the description fully compensates by listing the returned fields, the types of questions it answers, and the boundary to the sibling tool. An agent has enough context to select and invoke it correctly.

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 the schema already documents the name parameter (with substring matching and examples) and the limit parameter. The description reinforces the meaning of the antibody name but adds no new parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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 resource ('metadata for an HIV antibody in LANL CATNAP') and enumerates the exact fields returned, from binding region to mean panel IC50. It also includes concrete example questions ('what does PGT121 bind', 'who isolated 10-1074') that make the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinguish it from catnap_search_neutralization.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool vs the sibling by saying 'For the per-strain measurements behind that panel, use catnap_search_neutralization.' The example questions also clarify the intended query types, leaving no ambiguity about when this tool is appropriate.

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