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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context the annotations cannot: buffer selection is scored on the WORST enzyme's percent activity, star-activity buffers are disqualified at any percent, and the singleTube=false failure mode when enzymes share no buffer or temperature.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by the concrete outputs it returns. The opening sentence is long and parenthetical-heavy, but every part carries information (buffer scoring rule, cofactor, heat inactivation) and nothing is padded.

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?

The tool has an output schema and full schema descriptions, so return values need not be explained, yet the description still usefully characterizes them. It also covers the failure mode and the no-open-record requirement. Only the absence of explicit sibling routing keeps it short of complete.

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% — the enzymes, _files, and _subject parameters are each richly documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the 'one tube' framing for the enzymes array and the no-common-buffer outcome, but contributes little beyond the schema on parameter syntax or formats.

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 a specific verb and resource — it returns the buffer, incubation temperature, cofactor, and heat-inactivation step a digest reaction needs — with enough specificity that an agent knows it computes reaction conditions rather than fragments. It does not name or contrast itself with the nearest siblings (digest_fragments, find_restriction_sites, enzyme_cut_counts), so differentiation still requires inference.

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 rather than stated: an agent can infer this is a planning/lookup step before running a digest, and the 'one call is one tube' note tells it how to batch enzymes. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of alternatives (e.g. digest_fragments for actual cutting), and no prerequisites beyond 'Needs no open record.'

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