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

Adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: the digest output carries both overhangs, and the selected fragment becomes a NEW record (consistent with readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false — it creates rather than mutates). Enzyme resolution and the default active-collection fallback are covered in the schema rather than the description.

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?

Two tight sentences that front-load the action and then explain the downstream consequence. Every clause carries information, though the second sentence packs workflow context and behavior into one dash-joined phrase.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the annotations carry the safety profile. The description supplies the workflow role and the new-record emission, so an agent has enough to call it correctly; only explicit alternative routing is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and every parameter (enzymes, _subject, _files, fragment_index) is documented inline, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only implicitly references the enzyme and fragment-selection parameters, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (digest) and resource (the subject, with given enzymes) and specifies the output form: real fragments with sequence plus both overhangs, emitted as a NEW record. This clearly separates it from siblings like find_restriction_sites, enzyme_cut_counts or size_fragments, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

Positions the tool in a workflow — 'the digest→assembly hand-off' and its use when a downstream gel/map/ORF should run on the emitted fragment — which gives a clear sense of when to reach for it. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when NOT to use it (e.g., when only cut counts or site positions are wanted).

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