Scan motif

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds the strand-orientation behavior but does not disclose details like match truncation, overlapping behavior, or edge cases; these are left to 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place, and the core action and scope are presented clearly.

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 output schema, full parameter documentation, and safety annotations, the description is mostly sufficient. The only gap is the lack of explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over siblings, which is a minor omission.

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 all five parameters. The description mentions motif and strands but adds no semantic value beyond what the parameter descriptions already provide.

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 names a specific action ('Scan'), a specific input type ('IUPAC motif'), and a clear scope ('forward, reverse, or both strands'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like reverse-complementing, translating, or summarizing sequences.

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?

Usage is implied: an agent can infer this tool is for finding motif occurrences rather than for sequence transformation or summarization. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives.

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