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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope—curated dataset, returned fields, and a research-only restriction—but does not describe pagination, result limits, or search behavior beyond the schema.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and returned fields. The "Research use only" caveat is brief and earns its place.

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 simple read-only list/search tool with no output schema, the description adequately names the dataset and returned fields. However, it omits the language parameter and does not clarify search matching behavior, leaving gaps for a two-parameter tool.

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 50%: query is documented in the schema, but lang has no description and is not mentioned in the tool description. The description does not compensate for this gap, so an agent must infer what lang controls.

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: "List or search the curated research peptide dataset," and enumerates the fields returned (ids, names, aliases, categories, confidence grades, dosing windows). It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_protocol or plan_stack, though the list/search framing is distinct.

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?

The description implies usage through "List or search" and adds a "Research use only" restriction, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing to alternatives such as get_protocol or compare_syringes.

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