Reverse complement

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

The annotations already indicate a read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds context about handling IUPAC ambiguous codes and RNA in addition to DNA, which is useful behavioral information not present in the 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, direct sentence with no redundancy. It clearly states the core functionality without unnecessary detail.

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 simplicity, the presence of an output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description is sufficient. It covers the key differentiators (IUPAC, DNA/RNA) and the schema handles the input constraints.

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 input parameter is fully documented. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific detail, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 clearly identifies the resource ('reverse complement') with relevant scope ('IUPAC-aware DNA or RNA'). This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like translate_sequence or scan_motif.

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 usage by stating the function, but it does not explicitly say when to use it or mention alternatives. It provides no exclusions or 'when not to use' guidance, though the narrow purpose makes the intended context obvious.

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