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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds that the result includes a link to quotes from rated firms, which is useful output context, but it says nothing about permissions, failure modes for unknown application numbers, or coverage limits.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with an explicit "Use this for" trigger followed by the return value. No filler and nothing redundant.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and annotations handle the safety profile. Combined with a two-parameter schema, the description covers office scope and the single-application constraint; only the application_number format is left implicit, which is a 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 0%, so the description has to compensate. It does spell out that the office is one of EUIPO, UK IPO or Benelux (mapping the enum values to readable names) and that exactly one application is queried, but it gives no format or length guidance for application_number.

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 resource (a representative requirement for a single opposed application) and a specific outcome (whether the applicant must or may appoint a representative plus a quotes link). It implicitly separates itself from find_ip_representatives and get_ip_representative_profile by operating on one existing application rather than searching for firms, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

"Use this for one EUIPO, UK IPO or Benelux application facing an opposition" gives a clear trigger condition and a scope limit (one application, opposed only). It stops short of explicit exclusions or naming which sibling to use instead for other cases, so it is strong but not complete routing guidance.

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