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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions the analysis outputs (statute hints, overlap theme, distinction checklist) but does not state whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, has side effects, or how results are returned. It also doesn't mention that confirm_upload implies a user confirmation step. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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, with the core purpose in the first sentence and the usage condition in the second. No wasted words, and the most important information is front-loaded. Efficient and scannable.

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 comparison tool with four parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main inputs and the nature of the analysis. It lacks details on error handling (e.g., patent not found), the exact structure of the checklist, or whether a filename is required. Given the complexity, it is adequate but not rich; the absence of annotations and output schema means more could be said.

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 four parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides—it does not elaborate on the format of code, patent_id, or confirm_upload. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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 (compare) and resource (invention text to a known US patent), and lists the analysis types (embedding similarity, prior-art risk). It also names the triggering condition ('when the user names a specific reference patent'), which differentiates it from siblings like precheck_search_corpus and precheck_lookup_patent. The purpose is unambiguous and 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 an explicit when-to-use condition ('Use when the user names a specific reference patent'), which clearly routes the agent away from search-based tools. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the condition is enough to guide selection among the sibling tools. Slight gap: no mention of what to do if no patent is named.

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