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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description adds limited behavioral context. It confirms a read operation but does not elaborate on the return metadata structure, which is a gap given no output schema.

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 two sentences long with a bullet for parameter details, all front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or vague language.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description is largely complete. However, without an output schema, it would benefit from briefly mentioning what metadata fields are returned to fully guide 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates fully by explaining the patent_id parameter with concrete examples (e.g., 'US9876543B2'). This adds significant value beyond the schema's plain string 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 looks up a specific patent by its publication number and returns metadata, with examples for the input format. It is distinct from sibling tools which focus on searching by assignee or inventor.

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 implies usage when a specific patent number is known, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. The context from siblings helps, but the description itself lacks direct guidance.

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