Enumerate candidate ORFs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's safe. The description adds 'bounded' and 'all six reading frames,' which clarifies output scope but not additional behavioral traits like output format or limit handling, which are covered by the schema and output schema.

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 sentence with an action-first structure, no redundant statements, and fully captures the tool's essence.

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 rich schema, output schema, and clear annotations, the one-sentence description is sufficient to convey the tool's role. It could optionally mention that this is for analysis after sequence input, but not essential. Overall complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage, with descriptions for all 7 parameters. The tool description adds no parameter-specific information, so it relies entirely on the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Enumerate') and resource ('bounded candidate ORFs') with the scope of 'all six reading frames,' distinguishing it from sibling tools like motif scanning or translation.

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 the tool is for ORF discovery but does not explicitly specify when to use it over alternatives like computase_scan_motif or translate_sequence. It provides clear context (enumerating ORFs) but no exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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