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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read. The description adds valuable behavioral context by detailing the return payload (metadata, viewer link, PDF link, extraction status, document text, optional excerpts) and conditions like 'direct PDF link when available'. This goes beyond the annotations and clarifies what the tool does.

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 three sentences and front-loaded with the core action, then return details, then a usage pointer. Every sentence serves a purpose—action, output, and alternative guidance—making it concise without losing substance.

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?

No output schema is provided, so the description must explain return values, and it does so by listing metadata, viewer link, PDF link, extraction status, document text, and optional excerpts. It also covers the prerequisite of knowing the entry number. Minor details like max_chars behavior are not mentioned, but overall the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to know what to expect.

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 already documents 3 of 4 parameters with descriptive text (proceeding_number, entry_number, text_query). The description adds minimal parameter-level detail, only repeating 'query-centered excerpts' and the relationship of entry_number to get_ttab_proceeding_details, which is already in the schema. With schema coverage at 75%, the description does not significantly compensate for any gap, 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 clearly states the tool 'Retrieve[s] and read[s] one specific TTABVUE filing by proceeding number and entry number', using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_ttab_proceeding_details by noting that the entry number comes from that tool, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 provides a usage rule: 'Use get_ttab_proceeding_details first when the entry number is unknown.' This tells the agent when to use an alternative tool, which qualifies as explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus a sibling. No other exclusion is needed.

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