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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is known. The description adds useful behavioral context about the return content: specific components like parties, marks, counsel, and recent filings with entry numbers and links, which is not available elsewhere since there is no output schema.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and an em-dash list of contents, followed by targeted sibling disambiguation. Every word earns its place with no fluff or repetition.

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, the description adequately hints at the return structure by naming key fields (parties, marks, counsel, recent filings with links). It also contextualizes against sibling tools. Minor omission: no mention of pagination or typical number of filings, but not essential for a raw-details fetcher.

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 for the single parameter proceeding_number is 100%, including an example format. The description does not add parameter-specific details, but the schema already fully documents it. Baseline 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 opens with a specific verb, 'Get raw details for a TTAB proceeding,' and clearly delineates the scope: parties, involved marks, counsel, and recent filings with entry numbers and working TTABVUE document links. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_ttab_document (single filing) and analyze_ttab_proceeding (AI analysis).

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 names alternatives and when to use them: 'Use get_ttab_document to read one selected filing. Use get_owner_ttab_enforcement for owner-wide distributions and analyze_ttab_proceeding for AI-powered merits analysis.' This provides clear decision guidance.

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