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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: own-patent imports auto-attempt family grouping (no separate refresh needed), repeated requests return the existing record without updating it (consistent with idempotentHint), conflicts are raised when purpose or publication differs, and imports cannot change an existing record's purpose or replace its publication. It also explains timeout semantics ('a timed-out request may have saved the record'). This is exactly the context an agent needs before invoking a mutating, open-world tool.

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?

Well front-loaded with the core action, then behavior, then edge cases. It is on the long side for a three-parameter tool, and the receipt.status/receipt.warnings explanation partly duplicates the existing output schema, but every sentence still carries decision-relevant information.

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 an idempotent, open-world import with an output schema, the description covers conflicts, idempotency, timeout recovery, and immutability thoroughly. The remaining gap is the undocumented competitorCompanyName parameter (when it is required and what it does), which neither schema nor description resolves.

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 is 33% (only 'purpose' is documented), and the description does elaborate on own vs competitor meaningfully. However, 'competitorCompanyName' is never mentioned in the description despite being undocumented in the schema, and no format guidance is given for 'publicationNumber'. It adds value for one parameter but does not compensate for the coverage gap on the other two.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Imports one public patent publication into the connected organisation') and immediately disambiguates the two modes (own vs competitor). An agent can tell this apart from search_public_patents and request_patent_preparation without opening either schema.

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?

Gives clear context for choosing a purpose ('own identifies the customer's own patent... competitor identifies someone else's') and clarifies that ownership should come from user intent rather than search results. It also explains retry behavior after timeouts. It never names an explicit alternative tool or states when not to use this one, so it stops short of a 5.

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