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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: on-demand compounds yield an advisory rather than a calendar, and the output is a research-use-only schedule. It still does not say what the advisory looks like or how the schedule is structured, but that gap is minor against the annotation coverage.

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 tightly packed sentences with no filler, and the core capability (week-by-week schedule) is front-loaded. The trailing 'Research use only' clause is short and carries real constraint information rather than padding.

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 7-parameter read-only generator with no output schema, the description covers what is produced (presets, titration ladders, optional syringe units) and the one output divergence (advisory vs calendar). It stops short of describing schedule granularity or what the advisory contains, but nothing essential to invoking the tool correctly is absent.

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 86%, so the schema already documents days, weeks, start_date, and the vial_mg/water_ml pairing. The description's 'frequency presets (daily / 1-3x weekly)' and 'per-event syringe units' loosely reinforce those parameters but add no syntax or semantics beyond what the schema states, so the 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 names a specific verb (generate) and a well-defined artifact (week-by-week research schedule with frequency presets, titration ladders, and syringe-unit readouts), which clearly separates it from data-lookup siblings like list_peptides or get_protocol. However, it never explicitly contrasts itself with plan_stack, the closest sibling, so the agent must infer the boundary between scheduling one peptide and planning a stack.

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?

Usage is only implied by the artifact it produces; there is no explicit 'use this when…' statement or naming of alternatives such as plan_stack or calc_reconstitution. The one conditional note ('On-demand compounds return an advisory instead of a calendar') hints at an edge case but is behavioral rather than routing guidance.

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