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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context by naming the fields returned (top/bottom cut, overhang, kind) and implying it operates on the currently open record, but says nothing about failure modes (no open record, unknown enzyme name) or the catalog fallback behavior.

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, and the most important element (what is computed) comes first. The trailing parenthetical is efficient but 'kind' is slightly opaque, which costs it the top score.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the parameters are fully documented in the schema — those burdens are lifted. However, for a tool that acts on an implicit 'open plasmid' via a nested _subject/_files schema, the description never clarifies the targeting model or when the operation fails, leaving a real gap in usage context.

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% across all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description only echoes the 'given enzymes' input and the target plasmid; it adds no syntax, naming conventions or resolution behavior beyond what the schema already documents.

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 operation (computing cut positions) on a specific resource (the given enzymes on the open plasmid) and enumerates the result detail (top/bottom cut, overhang, kind). It is clearly distinguishable from label-different siblings such as digest_fragments or scrub_restriction_sites, though it never names an alternative to confirm the distinction.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite statement (e.g. that a plasmid must be open), and no routing to related tools like enzyme_cut_counts, digest_fragments or restriction_ligate. The only hint of scope is the phrase 'on the open plasmid', which is implicit at best.

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