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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description's main addition is the payload inventory (what fields come back) plus the research-only disclaimer. It says nothing about behavior on an unknown peptide id, localization behavior of the lang parameter, or retrieval limits.

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?

Two dense sentences with no filler; the payload inventory is front-loaded and the disclaimer is correctly relegated to the end.

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 field enumeration is genuinely useful and covers the return contract. However, the undocumented lang parameter and the absence of any error/not-found behavior leave gaps for a lookup tool with a required identifier.

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 only 50%: 'peptide' is documented by the schema, but 'lang' (enum en/zh, default en) is undocumented in both the schema and the description. The phrase 'for one peptide' faintly reinforces the singular identifier input but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema example.

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 ('Get') and resource ('research protocol record for one peptide') and enumerates the returned content (dosing window, frequency, cycle, titration ladder, notes, confidence grade). It implicitly distinguishes itself from list_peptides by scoping to a single peptide, but it never names a sibling.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, no routing among siblings such as list_peptides, plan_schedule, or plan_stack. 'Research use only' is a legal disclaimer, not usage guidance.

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