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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add a meaningful caveat ('Informational only — not legal advice'), signaling the agent that this is non-authoritative. However, it does not disclose what happens with the uploaded code, whether this is a safe read-only operation, or what the 'snippet' entails, leaving behavioral gaps given the lack of 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?

Two short sentences with zero waste. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the caveat is a separate terse sentence. Every word earns its place; the jurisdictional detail (CAFC, USPTO, Alice/§101) is dense but directly useful.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description states what it returns ('short snippet of guidance') and its informational status. But it does not specify the snippet's format, how the code input relates to retrieval, or how it fits into the PreCheck workflow alongside the other siblings. Given the complexity of the tool's legal context, more could be said without an output schema to rely on.

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% — code and confirm_upload are both documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies. The description's 'invention' phrasing loosely maps to the code parameter but adds no syntax or formatting detail.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return a short snippet') and resource ('current US software-patent legal guidance'), further narrowed by jurisdiction and doctrine (CAFC, USPTO, Alice/§101). This clearly distinguishes it from the siblings, none of which provide legal guidance — compare_to_patent, prior_art, and rejection_patterns all serve different functions.

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 phrase 'relevant to scoring this invention' implies this fits into the scoring workflow, giving some contextual placement. However, no sibling is named and there is no when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance, which matters given 11 siblings. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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