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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying the nature of the data ('raw details') and including 'working TTABVUE document links,' which implies functional links. This adds value beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 concise sentences, with the primary purpose front-loaded and the routing guidance as a clear secondary sentence. There is no fluff, and every clause 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?

For a read-only, single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool returns, how to use it, and when to use alternatives. No essential information is missing for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the single parameter (proceeding_number) is fully documented in the schema with an example. The description does not add any additional nuance or format details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Get') and resource ('raw details for a TTAB proceeding') and enumerates the included data types (parties, marks, counsel, recent filings with entry numbers and links). It clearly differentiates from siblings like get_ttab_document, get_owner_ttab_enforcement, and analyze_ttab_proceeding by naming them explicitly.

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 provides explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: 'Use get_ttab_document to read one selected filing' and 'Use get_owner_ttab_enforcement for owner-wide distributions and analyze_ttab_proceeding for AI-powered merits analysis.' This leaves no ambiguity about tool selection.

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