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

The annotations already declare that the tool is read-only, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two pieces of context beyond that: that results come from a deterministic algorithmic engine rather than model generation, and that the output is a list of cut sites. It omits strand/cut-position detail and how ambiguous bases are handled, which are minor remaining gaps.

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 block, with the purpose front-loaded in the bracketed tag followed by the trigger condition, then the return value. No sentence is wasted. The title tag does duplicate the annotation title, which is a small redundancy.

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 one-parameter, read-only analysis tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does, when it fires, and what it returns. An agent can call it correctly from this text. The only missing element is any note on output structure or on whether a specific enzyme set is used.

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?

There is a single parameter, and the schema describes it at 100% coverage as '核酸序列' (nucleic-acid sequence). The description adds no further semantics such as whether the sequence must be DNA, whether raw sequence or FASTA is accepted, or the expected length. With the schema already fully documented, the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: restriction-enzyme site analysis on a nucleic-acid sequence, and it restates the resource in the bracketed title tag. It is distinguishable from nearby siblings such as act_sequence_orf, act_sequence_translate, and act_protein_digest. It does not explicitly name or contrast those siblings, which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

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?

It gives a clear trigger condition in user-intent terms: 'when the user asks which restriction sites are on the sequence, or whether it can be cut.' That is actionable routing guidance. However, it names no exclusions or alternatives (for example, when to prefer act_cloning_design or act_protein_digest), so it does not reach 5.

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