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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether a document is produced, whether the worksheet is stored or ephemeral, how required vs optional fields are handled, or what the result looks like. No contradiction with the read-only annotations, just silence.

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?

Brevity here is under-specification rather than conciseness: three words carry no actionable information and nothing is front-loaded beyond a restatement of the name.

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?

A tool with 5 parameters, 4 of them required, zero schema descriptions, and no output schema needs a real description to be callable correctly. This one provides nothing about inputs, output artifact, or expected context, leaving the agent to guess.

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 0% (properties carry only types and minLength), so the description must compensate and does not. It never mentions title, inventor, problem, solution, or date, nor the formatting or length expected for each field.

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 is a three-word noun phrase, "Invention disclosure worksheet", that essentially restates the tool name and title. It never states a verb (generate? draft? validate?) or what the agent gets back, so the purpose can only be guessed by analogy with siblings like business_nda_draft.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternative or related tools among the 25 business_* siblings. The agent has to infer everything from the name alone.

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