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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description only needs to add context. It adds the data source ('USPTO PatentsView synced data') and an example illustrating output granularity. It does not describe pagination/rate limits, but the read-only hint covers safety. This is comparable to the get_calls example which scored 3.

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 appropriately sized at about four sentences. It front-loads usage guidance, then describes output, provides a concrete example, and ends with data source. The example is somewhat verbose but earns its place by showing the output format. No redundant 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?

With no output schema, the description explains the high-level return values (patent counts, filing years, CPC classification) and gives an example. However, it doesn't detail the exact structure and misses the patent_year parameter entirely. For a two-parameter tool with no output schema, it is adequate but not fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It implicitly clarifies assignee_name via 'rollups by assignee' and the Qualcomm example, but it completely omits the optional patent_year parameter. This leaves a parameter without any meaningful context beyond its name and type.

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's purpose: 'Returns USPTO filing rollups by assignee — patent counts, filing years, and CPC classification.' It also gives specific use cases (IP portfolio strength, competitor activity, M&A due diligence) and distinguishes itself from the sibling tools, none of which specialize in patent data.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('Use when assessing a company IP portfolio strength, tracking competitor patent activity, or preparing M&A patent due diligence'). It does not mention alternative tools or when not to use it, but the sibling list contains no close patent-related tools, so the guidance is sufficient.

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