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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it resolves/normalizes the firm name, computes rates at mark level, and distinguishes raw counts versus excluding pending matters. This gives context beyond the annotations, though edge cases like unknown firms or empty result sets are not disclosed.

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 action, and includes illustrative user questions. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy, making it both concise and well-structured.

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?

With two parameters, no output schema, and annotations that confirm read-only behavior, the description supplies the essential context: what the tool computes, the distinction between raw and excluding pending matters, and example questions. It does not fully specify the exact response format, but enough is conveyed for an agent to use the tool correctly in most situations.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters: firm_name and limit, each with clear descriptions. The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action (resolve a law firm and compute mark-level Office Action outcome rates) and resource (firm's OA outcomes). It includes example questions that clarify intended use, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_latest_office_action (single mark) and research_office_action (likely OA strategy) by focusing on firm-level aggregated metrics.

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 explicitly says 'Use this for questions like...' giving concrete query examples, which provides clear context for when to invoke the tool. However, it does not mention when NOT to use it or name alternative sibling tools for different scenarios, so it falls short of explicit exclusion guidance.

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