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 fully covered by structured data. The description adds only 'RETURNS: 肽段清单', which is useful since no output schema exists, but says nothing about cleavage rules, missed-cleavage defaults, how multiple enzymes combine, or what happens with invalid residues.

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 USE WHEN and RETURNS clauses are front-loaded and earn their place, but the six-item alias string (蛋白酶解, 质谱前处理, 酶解肽段, digest, trypsin, 肽段清单) is padding, and the bilingual title is repeated from the title field. The pipe-delimited metadata style is scannable but wasteful.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage and clear annotations, the minimal description is close to sufficient, and the RETURNS line partially compensates for the missing output schema. It is still thin on output shape (per-peptide fields, positions, masses) and on enzyme support, which an agent would need to interpret results.

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 only two parameters, each already documented ('酶：Trypsin/Lys-C', '蛋白序列'), so the schema does the heavy lifting and a 3 is the baseline. The description's 'choose protease' phrase hints that the enzymes array drives digestion, but it does not enumerate valid enzyme names or clarify whether multiple enzymes are applied in parallel or sequentially.

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 operation on a specific resource: in-silico protein digestion into a peptide list, with the use context 'mass-spec sample prep'. It does not explicitly differentiate from nearby siblings such as protein_physchem, protein_ptm, or protein_enrichment, so an agent must infer the boundary, but the verb+resource pairing is unambiguous.

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?

The 'USE WHEN: choose protease and list peptides for mass-spec sample prep' clause gives a concrete triggering condition, which is more than most siblings provide. It offers no when-not guidance and names no alternative tool for adjacent tasks (e.g. physicochemical property calculation vs. digestion), and 'choose protease' slightly blurs whether the tool selects the enzyme or the caller does.

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