Sequence Statistics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description only restates the core computational behavior without adding extra context such as input constraints, edge cases, or performance traits. 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 a single, focused sentence that begins with the action verb and lists the outputs. No wasted words; it is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 single parameter, full schema coverage, existing output schema, and annotations, the description is sufficient. It explains what the tool computes, and the output schema likely defines return values, so no further detail is needed.

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 fully documents the 'sequence' parameter including case-insensitivity and IUPAC ambiguity acceptance. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, maintaining baseline score.

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 uses a specific verb 'Compute' and identifies the resources (sequence length, mono/dinucleotide composition, GC skew), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like seq_gc_content which likely only computes GC content. It is unambiguous and precise.

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 purpose is clear, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., seq_gc_content for GC content alone). Usage is implied but not stated, and no exclusions or alternative suggestions are provided.

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