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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that results come from a real algorithm engine rather than LLM generation, signalling deterministic output, but it says nothing about cleavage rules, missed cleavages, output ordering or what happens when `enzymes` is omitted.

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?

It is a single compact statement with the operation front-loaded in the bracketed label and the return value clearly separated by "返回：". The telegraphic, loosely punctuated style borders on fragmentary, but nothing is wasted.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description does state the return value (peptide list) and execution model, which is most of what an agent needs. Gaps remain around default enzyme behaviour and result granularity, which matter since the tool is a scientific computation whose output shape drives downstream choices.

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%, with both `enzymes` (Trypsin/Lys-C) and `sequence` (protein sequence) documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description echoes the enzyme-selection intent but adds no format hints, no allowable enzyme list beyond the schema, and no statement of default-enzyme behaviour.

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 names a specific operation (protease digestion simulation) and its output (peptide list), and frames the trigger as "user wants to pick an enzyme for mass-spec pre-processing / compute peptides." That is enough to separate it from neighbours like act_protein_physchem or act_psm_match, but it never explicitly contrasts it with act_sequence_enzyme, which could plausibly also cover enzyme-based sequence work.

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: the phrase "user wants to choose enzyme for MS pre-processing, compute peptides" functions as an informal trigger condition. There is no when-not guidance and no named alternative (e.g. "for restriction/plasmid cloning use act_sequence_plasmid instead"), so an agent must infer routing against ~90 siblings on its own.

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