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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the data source (USPTO), optional prior-art corpus join, and lack of auth requirements. It does not mention error handling or rate limits, but for a simple lookup this is sufficient.

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 pack all essential information: the operation, source, optional feature, return fields, and auth requirement. No redundancy or filler.

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 lists the return fields and mentions the optional join, which is adequate for a simple lookup tool. It does not cover error cases or pagination, but given the tool's straightforward nature, it is mostly complete.

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% and descriptions already document both parameters. The description adds value with an example patent ID, clarifies the optional excerpt behavior, and explains the prior-art corpus join (a feature tied to the tool's behavior). This exceeds the baseline of 3.

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 resolves a US patent/application number and returns specific fields like title, status, CPC, excerpt, and URL. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform comparisons, suggestions, or searches.

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 basic patent info is needed and notes no API key is required, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like precheck_search_corpus or precheck_prior_art. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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