Translate sequence

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only and idempotent. The description adds the nuance of translating only 'complete codons' and using a selectable genetic code, but does not disclose stop-codon handling behavior or output specifics beyond the 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 sentence that is clear, front-loaded with the action, and contains no filler. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without redundant phrasing.

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 simple translation tool with thorough schema and annotations, the description is adequate. It covers the essential functionality, and the schema fills in parameter details. It does not mention edge cases like partial codons or stop-handling defaults, but these are either in the schema or not critical for selection.

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 provides complete descriptions for all three parameters, including defaults and constraints. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond stating 'complete codons' which is a sequence-level behavior rather than a parameter detail.

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 the tool's function: translate complete codons using a selected NCBI genetic code. The verb 'translate' and resource 'sequence' are specific, and it is distinct from sibling tools like scan_motif or reverse_complement.

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 for translation tasks but does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use this tool. Sibling tools are clearly different in function, so an agent can infer, but no explicit guidance is provided.

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