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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose 'Offline heuristic — informational only. No network call,' which is useful behavioral context implying low latency and non-authoritative results. However, it omits any detail about side effects, deterministic behavior, or whether it is read-only (though 'suggest' implies). It adds some value but could go further given zero annotation coverage.

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?

The description is two sentences with zero fluff. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the behavioral caveat follows immediately. Every word earns its place.

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 simple suggestion tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it names the input, the purpose, and two key behavioral traits. The only gap is that it doesn't describe what the response looks like (e.g., a list of codes with confidence scores), which would help the agent know what to expect. Given the low complexity, this is a minor omission.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds only a general reference to 'invention description,' which maps to the 'code' parameter, but does not elaborate on 'limit' or 'invention_kind' beyond what the schema already provides. It does not compensate for any schema gaps because there are none.

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 the specific action 'Suggest' and the resource 'Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC) codes for an invention description,' which clearly distinguishes it from prior-art or legal-context tools. However, it does not name an alternative sibling or explicitly differentiate itself from the many other precheck_* tools, so it stops short of the highest tier.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like precheck_prior_art or precheck_rejection_patterns. The description never mentions conditions like 'if the user needs classification hints' or 'when exploring patent categories.' The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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