Reverse complement

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 safety profile is covered. The description adds that IUPAC codes are handled and both DNA and RNA are supported, but it does not disclose edge-case behavior such as FASTA header handling or output formatting. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase contributes meaning: 'Compute,' 'IUPAC-aware,' 'DNA or RNA,' and 'reverse complement.'

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?

For a single-parameter, schema-backed, annotation-covered read-only transformation with an output schema, the description is sufficient. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly: input type, molecule scope, alphabet handling, and safety profile are all covered.

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%, and the schema already documents the accepted formats, IUPAC support, and the 5,000,000-nucleotide cap. The tool description adds only that the input is DNA or RNA, which is marginal beyond the schema's 'nucleotide sequence' wording.

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 states the exact operation ('Compute'), the target resource ('reverse complement'), and the scope ('DNA or RNA', 'IUPAC-aware'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools (summarize, translate, enumerate ORFs, scan motif), so an agent can immediately identify the right tool.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus the sibling tools, nor any exclusions. However, the operation is so specific that the intended usage is strongly implied: use it whenever a DNA or RNA reverse complement is needed.

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