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

Annotations already declare the write/idempotent/open-world profile, and the description adds real side-effect detail: emails to the assigned specialist and submitter, primary contact copied when applicable, and the caveat that delivery status is not returned. It does not address the destructiveHint=true flag, leaving an agent to wonder what is actually destructive about a workflow advancement.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the action, then side effects, return semantics and exclusions; each sentence carries distinct information. Slightly dense, but there is no filler 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?

Covers the action, preconditions, side effects and even the return semantics of an otherwise idempotent workflow trigger, despite an output schema already existing. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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% for the single invention_id parameter, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no format, lookup, or validation guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

Specific verb+resource ("Requests Lightbringer patent preparation") with explicit scope ("for an already registered innovation") and a clear boundary against the neighbouring registration concept. An agent can tell this apart from register_innovation 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 a clear precondition (innovation must already be registered) and an explicit exclusion set ("does not itself complete preparation, file a patent or pay for services"). It stops short of naming the sibling tool (register_innovation) or stating when-not to use it in preference to another sibling, so it is strong but not fully routing.

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