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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds substantial context beyond them: events are grouped per publication/country rather than collapsed, each event carries an `influence` of negative/positive/neutral, and authentication (_apiKey=consumer_key:consumer_secret) is required. It also discloses input normalization (trailing kind code retried).

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and source, then progressively adds differentiation, output-structure caveats, and auth. Every sentence carries information, though the single dense paragraph is longer than strictly necessary for a one-parameter read tool.

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?

With no output schema, the description still tells the agent what comes back (per-publication/country event groups with an `influence` field) and why a single in-force flag is not provided. Combined with the auth requirement and sibling differentiation, nothing an agent needs to call and interpret it correctly is missing.

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 100% for the single parameter, and the schema already documents the accepted number formats and kind-code retry. The description's 'give the publication number as printed on the document' and kind-code note largely restate what the schema says, so it adds little new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('INPADOC legal status for a patent family') and immediately scopes it with the source (EPO worldwide legal-status database) and the event types it returns. It explicitly names the sibling tools (get_biblio, get_family, get_claims) it is not, so an agent can route without opening schemas.

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?

Gives the exact questions this tool answers ('is this patent still in force', 'did it lapse for non-payment of a renewal fee') and states that the named siblings cannot answer them, which is explicit routing guidance. The per-jurisdiction caveat tells the agent when it must read individual member events rather than expect a single flag.

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