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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds that results carry a status and a note, and that the status filter is optional, but says nothing about result size, pagination, or behavior for unrecognized places. Modest added value on top of 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?

A single sentence that front-loads what is returned and follows with concrete example queries. No padding, though the phrase "in one place" is a slightly cutesy echo of the place parameter that costs a moment of parsing.

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 lookup with no output schema, the description conveys the returned fields (status plus a note) and the filtering behavior, which is enough to invoke it correctly. It omits any indication of result volume or coverage limits of "tracked peptides", a minor gap.

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% and the enum values are fully documented in the schema, so parameter semantics are already handled structurally. The description's "Optionally only one status" merely restates the optional status filter without adding syntax, defaults, or matching behavior. 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?

The description states the resource returned (every tracked peptide with its status and a note) filtered by place, which tells an agent exactly what the call yields. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling check_legal_status, which sounds like it could do the same thing. Clear purpose, missing sibling disambiguation.

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 explicitly gives use cases ("which peptides are legal in Australia", "what does WADA ban") and notes the optional single-status narrowing, which is genuine when-to-use guidance. It stops short of naming when NOT to use it or pointing at check_legal_status as the alternative.

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