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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool searches 'active' proceedings, which sets a scope constraint, and lists the courts covered. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, how results are returned (list, fields, pagination), or any limitations such as date ranges or filtering. The description gives some useful context but lacks depth on behavior beyond the query.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then lists the courts. It is efficient but slightly long due to the enumeration of six courts; however, that detail is valuable for an agent deciding whether this tool matches the jurisdiction. No wasted words, and the query examples are included in the schema rather than repeated.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should give some indication of what results look like. It explains what is searched (active proceedings across specific courts) but does not mention what fields are returned (e.g., case number, court, status, date) or any ordering/pagination behavior. For a search tool with moderate complexity and no output schema, this is a notable gap. The 'active' constraint is helpful, but the missing return information leaves the agent uncertain about how to use the results.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage: both 'query' and 'limit' have descriptions with examples. The description adds a small amount of extra meaning by stating 'Query by patent number, entity name, or keyword', which reinforces the query parameter's intent but does not go beyond what the schema already illustrates. Since schema coverage is high, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description provides marginal added value.

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: to search active European patent litigation proceedings across a specific set of courts. It names the exact verb 'search', the resource 'patent litigation proceedings', and enumerates the jurisdictions (UPC, UK High Court, EPO Boards of Appeal, etc.), which makes it distinct from sibling tools that retrieve specific case intelligence, judge benchmarks, or patent asset risk. This is a precise, non-tautological statement.

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 when to use this tool (when you need to search litigation across European courts) but does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools like get_case_intelligence or get_judge_benchmarks. It provides no 'use this instead of X' guidance or exclusions. The intended use is clear from the context, but there's no explicit routing.

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