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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the description has a lower disclosure burden. It adds useful behavioral context by saying the result is a structured protocol returned as Markdown and HTML ready to fill in or print, without contradicting the 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?

The description is two tight sentences with the core action and output front-loaded. Every phrase contributes to understanding what the tool produces and how it is configured.

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, the description does not need to explain return values in depth, and it still usefully names Markdown and HTML output. It is nearly complete for ordinary selection, though it could explicitly clarify preset versus custom sections and sibling differentiation.

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 high at 86%, so the schema already documents presets, custom sections, title, and inclusion flags. The description reinforces the preset/custom-section choice but does not add meaningful detail about aliases such as preset/presetId or includeExecutionNotes and includeVersionHistory.

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 a specific verb and resource: it builds a structured lab protocol from a title using a preset or custom sections, and it names the returned formats. It does not distinguish this tool from the sibling eln_template or explain when this protocol scaffold should be chosen over that alternative.

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 'using a preset or custom sections' implies the main usage path, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison with eln_template or other siblings. An agent must infer the selection context from the name and schema.

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