get_peptide_protocol

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool returns ('protocol matrices and typical dosing intervals') but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what the response format looks like, or any limitations/context (e.g., research-only disclaimer). This is a notable gap for a tool lacking annotation safety hints.

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 a single, clear sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. It contains no wasted words and is appropriately size for a simple tool.

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?

The tool is simple (1 parameter, no output schema), but the description is somewhat vague about what constitutes a 'protocol matrix' and does not specify the nature of the returned data. It is adequate but leaves room for interpretation, especially without any behavioral annotations to fill gaps.

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 100% with the parameter 'peptide_name' already described as 'The name of the peptide to retrieve protocol for.' The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. It does not explain the enum values or provide additional context about the parameter.

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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('standard research protocol matrices and typical dosing intervals'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like calculate_reconstitution_dose and get_syringe_mechanics_guide by focusing on protocol matrices and dosing intervals.

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 description implies usage when protocol matrices or dosing intervals are needed, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternative tools for related tasks (e.g., dose calculation, syringe mechanics). No exclusions or comparison to siblings are provided.

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