European IP Data & Analytics — IPRATE

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the static-release scope and the five-result cap, but it does not explain how multiple filters combine or what 'selected static release' means in operational terms.

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 tight sentences accomplish everything: the first states the verb, resource, and cap; the second lists supported filters and the mandatory-filter rule. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 read-only search tool, the description covers the essential behavior: scope, result cap, listed filter dimensions, and the at-least-one-filter requirement. It does not describe return format or filter combination semantics, but no output schema exists and the parameters are fully documented in the schema.

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 the baseline is 3. The description restates several filter categories but does not add semantic details beyond what the schema already provides, such as the 'trademark only' constraint on nice_classes or the hard maximum of five results.

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 uses a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('firms or attorneys') and scopes it to the selected static release, which makes the core purpose clear. It even enumerates the supported match criteria. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling get_ip_representative_profile, but 'find up to five' versus 'profile' makes the search intent reasonably distinct.

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 gives concrete use cases: name, jurisdiction, right type, released leading Nice class, or released leading-client match. It also states the non-obvious constraint that at least one filter is required. It does not name when not to use this tool or point to a sibling alternative, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: the result is already computed and static, at most five leading firms are returned, and only released cohort snapshots are provided. This gives the agent a clear model of what will happen when invoked.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the core behavior and follows with explicit constraints. Every phrase earns its place, and there is no redundant restating of the title or schema.

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 invocation, the description is complete: all required parameters are covered by the schema, the tool is safe and idempotent per annotations, and the description states the output shape. Without an output schema, it would be slightly stronger to describe snapshot fields, but the high-level return is sufficient for selection and calling.

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 the schema carries the parameter meaning. The description adds global constraints such as 'No dates, raw records, SQL, arbitrary grouping, or free-form question are accepted,' which mildly clarifies the spirit of the parameters but does not substantially elaborate on any individual parameter beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it returns one precomputed static cohort snapshot and up to five leading released firms. It also draws clear boundaries by listing what is not accepted, which distinguishes it from open-ended data query tools.

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 clearly communicates when this tool is appropriate: when the user wants a ready-made snapshot rather than raw records, arbitrary grouping, SQL, or a free-form question. It stops short of naming sibling tools as alternatives, so it is explicit about when not to use it but not about what to use instead.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the return spectrum (held, partial, not-covered) and lists returned elements (release assets, counts, fields, incidents), which is useful but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like authentication requirements or error conditions. With annotations carrying the safety burden, this is a solid 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 a single sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and then lists the return contents concisely. It is information-dense without rambling, though it could be split for easier scanning. This is efficient and earns a 4.

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 0 required parameters and no output schema, but the description clearly explains what it returns (state, assets, counts, fields, incidents) and the domain (static release cohorts, jurisdiction, IP-right). It does not specify behavior when no parameters are supplied, but for a read-only, idempotent tool with simple optional inputs, this is near complete. A 4 reflects the minor gap.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters (tier, right_type, jurisdiction) with enums and ISO code guidance. The tool description adds no additional parameter information, so it stays at the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 states a clear verb ('Explain') and specific resource ('static release cohorts') plus the scope ('jurisdiction and IP-right question'). It distinguishes from siblings (find_ip_representatives, get_ip_market_snapshot, get_ip_representative_profile) by its focus on coverage, but does not explicitly name them. This is clear but lacks explicit differentiation, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 provides a clear usage context: it is for when an agent needs to understand coverage for a jurisdiction and IP-right question. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is specific enough to guide selection. This fits the 'clear context, no exclusions' level.

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

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

Annotations already mark the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful context about public/published data and 'bounded' scope, though it does not define what 'bounded' means or mention error/rate-limit behavior.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence conveys the essential input constraint without wasting words.

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 read-only profile getter with fully documented parameters and robust annotations, the description covers the critical input rule. It could be more complete by clarifying what 'bounded' means and what the returned profile includes, especially since there is no output schema.

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 parameters are already documented. The description adds the crucial 'exactly one' exclusivity constraint that the schema does not express, plus the numeric qualifier for representative_id. It does not discuss representative_type, but the schema enum handles that.

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 ('Return') with a clear resource ('public evidence profile') and scope ('one published IP firm or attorney'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_ip_representatives, which implies search/list behavior.

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 instruction to 'Provide exactly one numeric representative_id or public profile slug' gives clear invocation context for a known identifier. However, it never explicitly names alternatives or says when not to use this tool, leaving comparison with siblings implicit.

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