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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: what each hit contains (citation, DOI, PubMed/ClinicalTrials.gov link, using courses, dossier commentary with verbatim quotes numbered as sources) and an explicit negative scope (never returns full texts or abstracts). It omits result ordering/relevance behavior, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then return shape, then negative scope. No filler and each sentence contributes distinct information.

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 no output schema, the description carries the full burden of describing return values, and it does so concretely (citation, DOI, external links, course attribution, quoted dossier text). The negative statement about full texts/abstracts preempts a likely agent misexpectation.

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 all three parameters are already documented with examples. The description echoes the query dimensions (topic, peptide, author, journal) but says nothing about the limit parameter or how the peptide filter interacts with query, adding little 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 (search research papers and trial registrations) plus the corpus it covers (Peptides Academy dossiers) and the dimensions searchable (topic, peptide, author, journal). It does not distinguish itself from the sibling get_peptide_research, which sounds like overlapping territory, so it falls short of a 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?

Two concrete example questions ("what studies looked at BPC-157 and tendon healing", "semaglutide cardiovascular outcomes") give clear context for when this tool is the right call. There is no explicit exclusion or pointer to get_peptide_research for the lookup-by-peptide case, so it stops at 4.

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