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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety needs no restating. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: results are reviewed patent families and counts are floors for recent Indian-office filings, a data-completeness caveat not available in the schema or annotations.

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, front-loaded with the trigger condition and closing with exclusions. The middle sentence is dense with illustrative examples, which aids recognition but runs slightly long; nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be described. The description covers scope, filtering, and the important data caveat that counts are floors for recent Indian-office filings, leaving no material ambiguity for a read-only query tool.

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 all four parameters are already documented with ranges, enums and defaults. The description restates the stage and Indian-applicant filters without adding syntax or format detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

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 and resource — lists reviewed patent families for one critical mineral — plus concrete domain examples (lithium extraction, rare-earth separation, battery recycling). It clearly differentiates from siblings like verify_patent_provenance and track_rd_project_ip by scoping itself to patent families per mineral.

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 states when to use it ('user asks about patents, inventions or processing technology for a critical mineral relevant to India') and when not to ('Do not use for patent legal status or for trade or price questions'). The exclusions route the agent away from search_trade_flows and provenance-checking siblings.

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