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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds only minimal behavioral context, such as 'same discovery index as the GleanMark TTAB workspace' and the breadth of discovery, but does not disclose return format, pagination, or other runtime behavior. This is acceptable but not additive beyond 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?

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes targeted alternatives. There is no redundant or filler text; 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 the tool has 6 parameters, an output schema is absent, and annotations are present, the description covers the key aspects: usage, filters, query formats, and sibling differentiation. The only minor gap is no mention of what the search returns (e.g., list of matching proceedings), but this is not critical for 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?

The description compensates for partial schema coverage (67%) by enumerating the accepted query types (party name, proceeding/serial/registration numbers) and summarizing filters (status, type, role, owner). It adds clarity to parameters like status_filter, which lacks a schema description. However, it does not mention the limit parameter, though that has clear schema defaults.

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 searches TTAB proceedings, a specific verb+resource. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming get_ttab_proceeding_details and get_owner_ttab_enforcement as alternatives for different use cases.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use for broad proceeding discovery' and 'For one known case after discovery, use get_ttab_proceeding_details; for owner enforcement statistics, use get_owner_ttab_enforcement.' This clearly states when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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