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

The description discloses the asynchronous nature of the operation: it may take seconds to minutes, returns a pending status while running, and includes ticket identifiers that allow later retrieval of results. This goes well beyond the sparse annotations and helps the agent handle the full lifecycle.

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, with the core action and resource in the first sentence and the important async caveat in the second. No filler or redundancy.

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 tool with only two parameters, a full output schema, and no destructive safety concerns, the description covers everything necessary to invoke it correctly and interpret a pending response. The ticket-identifier mention makes the asynchronous flow actionable, even though it does not name the exact retrieval sibling.

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% and both parameters already have descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds mild value by expanding the 'problem' enum to 'problem framing' and clarifying that invention_id refers to an invention disclosure, but it does not supply any syntax or additional parameter-level details.

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 and resource: 'Runs Lightbringer's patent-analysis suite on an invention disclosure.' It also names the output type (structured findings) and the selectable focus areas, which clearly distinguishes it from simpler retrieval/validation siblings like get_invention or validate_invention.

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 intended use case—wanting patent-analysis feedback on an invention disclosure—is clear from the description, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or reference to alternative tools such as validate_invention, get_review, or check_task_status for handling pending results.

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