evo2_score_fasta

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It states the output type (per-record total/mean log-likelihood), error reporting behavior, and importantly warns that scores are not clinical diagnostics. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but for an inference tool this is implied and not a significant gap given the safety disclaimers.

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 yet covers all essential aspects: purpose, input options, constraints, output, and limitations. The main action is front-loaded, and every sentence serves a purpose 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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explains the return values clearly. It covers input constraints and error reporting, but does not specify the exact response format (e.g., whether it's a JSON object or text). For a tool with only two parameters, this is a minor gap, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptive parameter comments, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the meaning of the output (per-record scores) which is not in the schema, and reinforces the sandboxing constraint for fasta_path, going beyond the schema's own description.

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 action ('Score every record'), the specific resource (FASTA source), and the model (Evo2-7B). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on FASTA input, making it easily separable from evo2_score or evo2_variant_score without needing to infer.

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?

Explicitly explains when to use the tool: 'Provide EITHER fasta_text OR fasta_path', with the path restriction clearly stated. It also provides cautionary guidance on interpreting results, which helps agents avoid misuse. The description mentions no alternatives but the either/or and sandboxing rules effectively guide usage.

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