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

Annotations already declare a safe read (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's job is to add provenance and edge-case context, which it does: results are community-reported rather than trial-tested, seller pages are never accepted as sources, each line carries its sources, and a peptide may legitimately have no record. It does not discuss result volume, pagination, or how conflicts between sources are resolved, which keeps it just short of a top score.

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 sentence is long but front-loaded: the return payload is stated first, then provenance caveats, then the usage pointer, then view semantics. Nearly every clause earns its place, though the trailing view explanation could arguably sit closer to the peptide content description rather than at the very 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 only two fully documented parameters and an output schema present, the description covers everything the agent still needs: what is returned, the reliability caveat, source-quality exclusion, the empty-result case, the cross-tool pairing, and the compact/full tradeoff. Nothing material for a correct call is missing.

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 100% and the peptide parameter already documents name/alias/slug/ID with examples, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning only for view — 'compact keeps key lines' versus 'view="full" returns every line' — which is a genuine but small increment over the schema's terse 'Default compact.'

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 and resource ('Return what community sources report about how people use one peptide') and enumerates exactly what comes back: uses, regimens with route/amount/frequency/duration, side effects, cautions, and regulatory notes. It also distinguishes itself from get_peptide_brief by pointing to that tool's studied_doses, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema.

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?

It gives explicit routing guidance: 'Use it for use, dose, cycle and compounding questions, together with studied_doses from get_peptide_brief.' The caveat 'Community-reported, not tested in trials' implicitly steers efficacy/trial-evidence questions toward the evidence siblings, but no sibling is named as the explicit alternative for trial data, so the when-not side is left implied rather than stated.

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