Summarize Intolerant Regions

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds behavioral details: the algorithm uses consecutive residues, ranking is ascending by mean sw_dn_ds, and output includes Pfam domains and variant evidence. No contradictions with annotations. However, it does not disclose performance characteristics or edge cases.

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 concise: two short paragraphs. The first covers purpose and algorithm, the second provides the function signature with defaults. No unnecessary words or repetition. The structure is clean and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 params, no output schema), the description adequately explains what the tool does, how it works, and what the output contains (regions with Pfam and variant evidence). It also references resolve_transcript for obtaining transcript_id. However, it does not describe the exact output format or structure, which could be helpful for an agent to parse results.

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?

All 5 parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds value by summarizing the default values in the signature line and providing context on what 'threshold' means (identifies most constrained positions) and how ranking works. This goes beyond just repeating schema descriptions.

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 explicitly states the tool returns 'top ranked contiguous intolerant regions' with specific criteria (sw_dn_ds below threshold, length >= min_run) and ranking (by mean sw_dn_ds ascending). It mentions annotation with Pfam domains and variant evidence, and provides a signature with default values. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_tolerance_landscape or get_position_tolerance.

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 implies use when one needs contiguous intolerant regions rather than individual positions, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No mention of when to prefer sibling tools like get_tolerance_landscape. Guidance is implicit but not explicit enough for an agent to confidently decide.

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