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

Annotations already declare read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that results are based on 'most commonly follow', implying a statistical or historical source, but it does not explain what happens if no mapping exists, whether results are sorted, or if the output is a list (though the 'limit' parameter suggests multiple). It adds some context beyond annotations but lacks depth.

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 key action and object. Every word is necessary and there is no repetition of schema information.

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 a simple lookup with a clear purpose, and the schema documents both parameters. However, with no output schema, the description does not clarify the return structure (e.g., whether it returns a single mapping or a list, or the fields included). This is a moderate gap that could confuse the agent.

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?

The schema description covers both parameters fully (event_code and limit), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides, such as formats or examples.

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 specifies a concrete action ('Look up') with a specific resource ('USPTO status code and status definition') and a condition ('most commonly follow a specific prosecution event code'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_event_code_reference' by focusing on status mapping rather than definition alone.

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 context but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. It lacks any mention of use cases, alternatives, or exclusions, so the agent must infer from the tool name and description.

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