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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: the result cap (up to ten documents), the document genres returned, the presence of public URLs for citation, the static completed-release scope, and the important caveat that a miss does not disprove existence. The annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent profile, and the description enriches rather than repeats them.

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?

Three sentences, each carrying distinct information: purpose/audience, return shape and citation affordance, then scope limitation. Front-loaded with the intended use case and free of filler.

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 one-parameter search with an output schema, the description supplies everything the schema and annotations cannot: what kind of corpus is searched, result volume, the ids that link to fetch, and the epistemological caveat about missing 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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents accepted query forms and the 256-character limit. The description's examples of query content ('patent firms Germany') echo the schema rather than extending it, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (IPRATE published evidence about European IP firms, attorneys, markets) and scopes it to open research queries. An agent can distinguish it from fetch, which consumes the ids this tool returns.

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?

Explicitly frames when to use it ('open research about European IP firms... who leads trademark work in a country') and routes onward via the returned ids for fetch. It also excludes the official registers and warns that absence of a result is not proof of absence, though it does not contrast itself with find_ip_representatives or get_ip_representative_profile.

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