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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine value beyond them by disclosing a scope limitation ('Legal status is not held; the result links to where it can be checked'), telling the agent what data will be absent and how to pursue it further.

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 the usage trigger before the detail. Every clause earns its place: the returned fields, the source links, and the legal-status caveat all add information with no padding.

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 single-parameter lookup, the description covers the trigger, the returned content, and a key data limitation, while annotations supply the safety profile and an output schema covers return structure. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 one parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Publication number or CM-PATRA record id.'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about accepted identifier formats or what happens on an unknown id; baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Names a specific verb (verify/check) and a precisely scoped resource: one patent family in CM-PATRA, enumerating what is returned (mineral/processing-stage labels, CPC codes, applicants, filing offices, source links). The singular 'one patent family' implicitly contrasts with the listing sibling get_mineral_patents, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 when the user wants to check one patent family in CM-PATRA' gives a clear, explicit trigger condition. There is no when-not guidance and no named alternative (e.g. get_mineral_patents for bulk listing), which keeps it below a 5.

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