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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses data scope (UPC, EPO BoA, partially national courts) and that decisions are 'published', which is useful. But it doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, result ordering, or return format.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and scope, then query capability. Minimal waste, though sentence structure could be slightly tighter.

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 2-param search tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, data sources, and queryable fields. It could specify result format or pagination, but is otherwise sufficient.

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%, so both 'query' and 'limit' are already documented in the schema with examples and default. The description's restatement of queryable fields adds little beyond the schema's example list.

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 (search) and resource (published European patent court decisions in UPC Intel database), with concrete example query types. Clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_case_details or get_judge_decisions, which are for detail/filtered retrieval rather than keyword search.

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?

Implies usage via 'Query by case number, patent number, court name or patent title', but doesn't explicitly say when to use this vs get_case_details or get_patent_proceedings. No exclusions or prerequisites stated.

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