Enumerate candidate ORFs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying that ORFs are 'bounded' and that enumeration covers 'all six reading frames,' going beyond what annotations alone convey.

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, efficient sentence that leads with the action and resource, then adds the critical six-frame scope. There is zero redundant wording and every word contributes to understanding the tool's 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?

The tool has a rich input schema with full parameter documentation and an output schema, so the one-sentence description is sufficient for selection and basic invocation. It does not explain the exact meaning of 'bounded,' but the schema's require_stop, max_results, and min_length_nt parameters clarify that concept.

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 each of the 7 parameters is already well documented with types, defaults, and constraints. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but it does not need to because the schema carries that burden.

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 ('Enumerate') and a specific resource ('bounded candidate ORFs'), and adds the important scope detail 'across all six reading frames.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like translate_sequence or scan_motif, which perform different biological analyses.

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 gives clear operational context: if the task is to enumerate candidate ORFs in all six reading frames, this is the tool to use. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the sibling names are distinct enough that an agent can infer 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.