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 by structured data. The description adds only 'RETURNS: 酶切位点清单', which indicates a list output but says nothing about ordering, counts, or whether all enzymes or a default panel are scanned. Useful but thin beyond the annotations.

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 pipe-delimited layout front-loads the name and the USE WHEN trigger, so the key routing signal is immediately visible. The bilingual title and alias list add some bulk, but the aliases carry real matching value for Chinese-language queries.

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 single-parameter, read-only analysis tool with no output schema, the definition covers trigger, aliases and return type, which is sufficient to call it correctly. The main residual gap is that the description never says which enzymes are considered or whether the caller can choose a panel.

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 with 100% schema coverage, so the schema already documents the required 'sequence' string. The description reinforces that the input is a DNA sequence but adds no format, length, or alphabet constraints of its own, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 verb and resource: 'find restriction enzyme sites in a DNA sequence', refined by 'can it be cut, which enzyme'. That is enough to separate it from neighbouring tools such as dna_translate, orf_find or plasmid_map, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

'USE WHEN: find restriction enzyme sites in a DNA sequence' gives a clear positive trigger, reinforced by colloquial triggers like '能不能切开'. There is no explicit when-not or named alternative such as cloning_design or plasmid_map, so routing against near neighbours 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.