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

No annotations provided, so description must carry full burden. It only states the basic action without disclosing side effects, authorization needs, or whether it is destructive. For a write-like operation, safety information is missing.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence with no verbosity. Every word is meaningful, but conciseness does not excuse missing critical 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?

No output schema and minimal description. Agent cannot infer return value, errors, or side effects. With 4 parameters and multiple siblings, the description is too brief to fully guide correct usage.

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 50% (only name and patent_ref have descriptions). The description adds no parameter-level details beyond restating 'patent reference numeral.' It does not explain npub or dpop_token, leaving gaps not compensated by 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 'Ground a capability in a patent reference numeral' uses a specific verb and clarifies the resource (capability) and relationship (patent reference numeral). It is distinct from siblings like cypher_bind_capability_to_symbol or cypher_link_invariant_to_patent, though 'ground' is domain-specific.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cypher_link_invariant_to_patent. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it. Given many similar sibling tools, this is a gap.

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