Run Blast

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds the key behavioral trait of async polling with a 120s wait, which is valuable beyond annotations. It does not contradict annotations.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the core purpose, and every word adds value. No redundant or extraneous content.

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 has 4 parameters, all documented, and no output schema. The description does not describe the return format or how results are structured, which could be helpful for an agent. However, the tool is relatively straightforward and the async behavior is noted.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. It mentions the programs but does not explain them further.

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 clearly states the tool runs NCBI BLAST sequence alignment and lists the supported programs (blastp/blastn/blastx/tblastn). This gives a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools which are primarily gene/drug/structure analysis tools, not sequence alignment.

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 description mentions async polling with a 120s timeout, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The context of sibling tools implies it is the only BLAST tool, so usage context is clear but no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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