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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is known to be a safe read operation. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations: the search modes (exact, prefix, keyword) and the return content (code, description, category). This is more than the typical annotation-covered case, though it omits edge behavior like empty-result handling or no-parameter calls.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary verb and resource. Every clause contributes: what it looks up, how to search, and what it returns. No filler or repetition.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description appropriately explains the return fields. However, it does not clarify behavior when no parameters are provided (all are optional in schema), nor does it mention pagination or default search behavior beyond the limit parameter. This ambiguity could cause an agent to assume a search term is required, making the description incomplete for a tool with zero required parameters.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description mostly restates what the schema already says about code and search. It adds minimal value by framing them as alternative search modes, but does not meaningfully supplement the parameter meanings beyond the schema.

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 identifies the tool's resource (USPTO event codes used in trademark prosecution) and its specific actions: look up by exact code, prefix, or keyword. It also names the return fields, making it distinct from sibling tools like get_event_status_mapping or get_reference_lookup.

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 when to use the tool (when you need to look up or decode USPTO event codes) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternative sibling might be more appropriate (e.g., get_event_status_mapping for status mapping). With many siblings available, this is a clear gap.

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