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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the output is informational only and not legal advice, but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as whether the tool modifies state, requires authorization, imposes rate limits, or how 'current' the guidance is.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and a key disclaimer. No unnecessary words.

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?

The description adequately explains the output scope (US software-patent legal guidance) and the informational nature. However, it does not clarify how the filename parameter affects results or what constitutes a 'short snippet,' and no output schema exists to supplement.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description adds no additional meaning beyond the parameter descriptions. The baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool returns a short snippet of current US software-patent legal guidance relevant to scoring the invention. It explicitly names CAFC, USPTO, Alice/§101, distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on prior art, patent lookup, or comparison.

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 implies use when legal context is needed for scoring an invention, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over siblings like precheck_prior_art or precheck_lookup_patent. No alternative tools or exclusions are mentioned.

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