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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Show,' implying a read operation, but omits any details about side effects, authorization needs, rate limits, or error behavior. The description is too terse to be transparent.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a tool with few parameters and no complex concepts, though it sacrifices detail for brevity.

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 no output schema, low schema coverage, and a moderate number of siblings, the description is too incomplete. It does not explain what 'patent grounding' means, what the tool returns, or any edge cases (e.g., invalid capability). The agent lacks sufficient context to use the tool reliably.

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 only 33% (only 'name' has a description). The tool description adds no further parameter information beyond what the schema already states. The parameters 'npub' and 'dpop_token' remain completely unexplained, leaving their purpose ambiguous.

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 and resource: 'Show a capability's patent grounding.' It is clear what the tool does in isolation, though it does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like cypher_link_capability_to_patent or cypher_list_patent_elements. The term 'patent grounding' is somewhat domain-specific but likely clear in context.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it. The agent receives no help in deciding between this and similar sibling tools.

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