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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the nuance that results reflect 'most commonly' following statuses, implying an aggregate/probabilistic mapping rather than a guaranteed exact match. This adds value but doesn't go deeper into output behavior.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It communicates the action, the resource, and the qualifying logic in under 20 words while remaining easy to parse.

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 simple two-parameter, read-only lookup, the description plus fully documented schema is largely sufficient for an agent to call it correctly. It doesn't describe alternatives or explicit output format, but it does indicate what is returned (status code and definition). The lack of an output schema is partially compensated by the description's clarity.

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 both parameters are adequately documented in the schema itself. The description does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides for event_code or limit, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Look up') and resource ('USPTO status code and status definition') with a clear qualifier ('most commonly follow a specific prosecution event code'). It conveys a distinctive statistical-mapping function, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like get_event_code_reference. The title is generic but the description is specific enough.

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 its use case: when an agent needs the most likely status code/definition for a given prosecution event code. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tools, which matters given many similar siblings exist. It is sufficient for an obvious lookup intent but lacks routing guidance.

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