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 covered. The description adds domain context (USPTO/TTAB) but discloses no additional behavioral traits like pagination behavior, though the after_code parameter hints at it.

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?

A single sentence with a clear verb and a list of example table types. It is efficient and front-loaded, though the enumeration makes it slightly longer than strictly necessary.

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 read-only lookup tool with a well-specified schema and annotations, the description conveys the core purpose and scope adequately. It doesn't explain pagination or return format, but these are not required given the schema and the tool's simplicity.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond the schema; for instance, it doesn't explain the distinction between code, query, and after_code, but the schema already handles this.

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 states the action ('Look up') and the resource ('USPTO or TTAB reference codes and small lookup tables'), with a helpful list of example table types. It is distinct in scope from sibling tools like get_nice_classes or search_design_codes, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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: use when you need a reference code or small lookup table value. However, it doesn't state when not to use it or mention alternatives, such as more specialized sibling tools for specific tables.

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