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

The annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds meaningful interpretation beyond that: counts and key findings use administered findings only, a zero human count means no checked human findings within filters rather than no human study existing, and trial counts distinguish entries that test the peptide from entries that only mention it. Much of this concerns return-value semantics rather than invocation behavior, so it is strong but not fully invocation-focused.

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 purpose and sibling routing are front-loaded, but the description is a long paragraph with many output-detail sentences, including key_findings_v0.4 ordering, coverage.checked_years, coverage.search_scope_years, and evidence_summary.trials.other_registry_entries. Since an output schema exists, much of this is likely redundant with structured data, and the unexplained studied_doses reference adds ambiguity.

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 read-only overview tool with an output schema, the description is more than complete. It covers intended use, alternatives, evidence-class interpretation, zero-count caveats, coverage fields, trial-counting semantics, and notices describing coverage limits. No critical invocation detail 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 schema already defines peptide examples, the view enum, and the community grant requirement. The description never explains the view parameter or the community dataset grant behavior, and adds no syntax or format details beyond the schema's own descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Return a precomputed summary of one peptide' and enumerates identity, sequence, checked findings by evidence class, trials, key findings with citations, coverage, and notices. It also distinguishes this from siblings by directing unclear names to resolve_peptide, specific outcomes to search_findings, and multi-peptide comparisons to compare_peptides.

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 explicitly says 'Use this for an overview of a known peptide' and names the alternatives for adjacent use cases: resolve_peptide for an unclear name, search_findings for a specific outcome, and compare_peptides for 2 to 5 peptides. The dose-question pointer to studied_doses and get_community_practice adds another routing condition, though studied_doses is not a sibling tool and is left unexplained.

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