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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context on top: the list-returning fallback when no selector is supplied, the returned fields (link, extraction status, cached text, excerpts), and the document-list shortcut. It is transparent without contradicting the annotations.

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?

Three focused sentences with no filler. The core retrieval behavior is front-loaded, followed by the return summary and practical usage tips. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given no output schema and seven parameters, the description covers the essential invocation paths, return content, and fallback behavior well. It does not explicitly explain max_chars' effect on returned text, which is the one parameter without a schema description, but the overall guidance is sufficiently complete for correct use.

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 coverage is high at 86%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that document_id is stable and returned from list_prosecution_documents, that text_query yields query-centered excerpts, and that serial_number alone returns the document list. This meaningfully supplements the parameter documentation.

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-resource pair: 'Retrieve one specific USPTO prosecution document', and clearly distinguishes this single-document retrieval tool from list_prosecution_documents. It also names the key selectors, making the tool's identity immediately clear.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: use text_query when the user asks what a document says about an issue, and call with serial_number alone to get the document list without a separate list_prosecution_documents call. This effectively tells the agent when and how to invoke this tool versus its closest sibling.

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