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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds domain behavioral context (star activity requires low ionic strength, high pH, Mn2+ substitution, glycerol, DMSO, detergents), but says nothing about the tool's own execution behavior. Adequate given annotation coverage.

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 sentences with the purpose front-loaded, then the distinguishing conditions. Dense technical jargon is justified for the domain, though the first sentence's phrasing ('Where the given enzymes could ALSO cut') is a slightly awkward way to open.

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 explained, and the annotations cover safety. The description supplies the conceptual grounding (what star sites are, why they matter) that an agent needs to interpret results, though it does not mention the enzyme-collection default or subject resolution, which the schema handles.

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 already documents enzymes, _subject, and _files, including the REBASE spelling note and the default-to-active-collection behavior. The description adds the 'one-base rule' and REBASE provenance but no parameter-level 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 and resource: finding where enzymes could ALSO cut under non-standard (star) conditions, sourced from REBASE's star-activity list and one-base rule. It explicitly differentiates from normal cut sites ('Not cut sites'), which distinguishes it from find_restriction_sites, though the opening clause is slightly indirect.

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?

Gives context for when star sites matter (non-standard conditions, over-digested reactions reading as the wrong clone), which implies when to reach for this tool. However, it never names an alternative tool or states an explicit when-not condition, so routing versus siblings like find_restriction_sites is left to inference.

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