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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action (Show) without revealing side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether it is read-only. While it implies a read operation, this is not explicitly confirmed.

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 extremely concise, consisting of a single clear sentence. However, it could include slightly more information without becoming verbose, such as hinting at output or parameters.

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 and three parameters (two undocumented), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what the tool returns or the purpose of the optional parameters. The sibling tools list is large, and the description does not help differentiate this tool's specific role.

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 33% (only 'ref' has a description). The tool description adds no semantics for 'npub' and 'dpop_token', which remain unexplained. For 'ref', the schema already provides an example (e.g., 400), so the description offers no additional value over the schema.

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: to show what a patent reference numeral describes. It uses a specific verb (Show) and resource (patent reference numeral), and given the sibling tools like cypher_list_patent_elements and cypher_upsert_patent_element, this tool's function is distinct, though not explicitly differentiated.

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?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it indicate any prerequisites or context for invocation.

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