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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses pricing ($0.05/call), coverage (100+ offices), and input behavior (publication number triggers biblio lookup, other fields trigger search). However, it does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation or discuss error handling, rate limits, or failure modes.

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 front-loaded with a clear first sentence, but it contains significant redundancy (the two main paragraphs repeat similar content). It could be more concise by merging or removing duplication while retaining all key information.

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?

Given the complexity (7 parameters, no output schema), the description provides a comprehensive overview of return fields (publication number, country, kind code, dates, titles, applicants, inventors, classifications, family id), input options, pricing, and coverage. It lacks details on pagination or error responses but is largely 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%, yet the description adds significant value by explaining CQL prefix syntax (e.g., 'ti=', 'in=', 'pa=') and clarifying that setting publication_number switches to biblio lookup mode. This enhances understanding beyond the schema descriptions alone.

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's purpose: European patent search and bibliographic lookup via the EPO OPS, specifying what it returns (publication number, country, dates, etc.) and the supported input methods (number or CQL search). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by its unique domain (patents), with no overlapping functionalities.

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 explicitly mentions use cases (IP due-diligence, freedom-to-operate, prior-art, R&D) and provides context such as coverage and pricing. However, it lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools, though they are mostly unrelated.

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