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 needs no restating. The description earns credit for what annotations cannot convey: the shape of the answer (per-jurisdiction status with a plain-language note), the deeper U.S. payload (compounding rules, latest FDA advisory vote, next dated event), the inclusion of primary sources, and the last-verified date.

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?

A single dense sentence, but it is front-loaded with the resource and scope before the jurisdiction list and return details. The list of eleven regulators plus example blends is long, yet each item is load-bearing for an agent deciding whether the jurisdiction it needs is covered.

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 and only annotations on the input side, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so: per-place status, plain-language notes, U.S. deep-dive fields, sources, and a verification date. It also flags a real coverage limitation ('Brazil, where covered'), which is exactly the kind of caveat an agent needs.

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 both parameters are already fully documented with examples and the omit-for-every-place convention. The description restates that same information ('or in the one place you name') without adding format, casing, or matching rules, so it sits at the high-coverage baseline rather than above it.

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+resource combination: the legal status of one peptide/GLP-1 drug/named blend, enumerated across seven named jurisdictions plus a caller-specified one. The explicit 'one peptide' scope also separates it from list_compounds, and the jurisdiction enumeration separates it from the narrower status_in_place.

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?

Gives a clear usage fork: name one place for a single-jurisdiction answer, or omit it for every place, which is genuine when-to-use guidance. It does not, however, name the alternatives (status_in_place, recent_changes) or state when a different sibling would be the better choice.

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