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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds genuinely new context: it returns Markdown and HTML, and timestamps and voice prompts are opt-in. It does not explain the default behavior when only a preset or only sections are supplied, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the return formats. Almost no waste; the section list is long but each item conveys real output structure.

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 an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description supplies what the structured fields do not: the generated document shape and output formats. A note on default behavior with zero required parameters, or on preset-vs-section precedence, would make it complete.

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 coverage is 86%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds value the schema does not: it frames `preset` and `sections` as alternative construction paths ('from a preset or custom list') and clarifies that timestamps and voice-capture prompts are optional outputs. It does not resolve the preset/presetId and sections/sectionItems alias ambiguity, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

Specific verb ('Build') plus a well-defined resource ('electronic lab notebook entry template') and an enumeration of the sections it produces. It also states the output formats. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling `protocol_template`, which an agent could plausibly confuse for the same job.

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 phrase 'for an experiment' implies the use case, and 'from a preset or custom list' hints at two construction modes, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion against `protocol_template`, and no statement of what happens if called with no arguments.

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