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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real behavioral context: invalid dates fail loudly, the real total on the date is always returned before any filtering, and totals ignore the detail limit. It does not discuss pagination behavior or continuation past the result set.

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 the core action and scope, then prerequisite, then the kind filter — a logical order. The kind-code meanings partially duplicate the schema description, but that parenthetical detail earns its place by decoding the codes.

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?

For a read-only list tool with full annotation coverage and 100% schema description coverage, the definition supplies everything needed: valid input source for the required date, failure behavior, filter semantics, and the fields returned. The absence of an output schema is compensated by enumerating the return fields.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond the schema by explaining what each kind code means (A1 newly-published application, A2 without search report, A3 search report, B1/B2/B3 granted stages, bare letter for either family) and restating the real-EPO-date constraint on "date".

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 and resource (list EP patent publications) scoped to one EPO publication date, and names the returned fields (publication number, kind code, title, applicant(s)). Referencing eps_publication_dates as the source of valid dates implicitly distinguishes it from that sibling.

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 an explicit prerequisite and where to satisfy it ("date must be a real EPO publication date — get one from eps_publication_dates") plus the consequence of getting it wrong (fails loudly rather than silently returning nothing). It stops short of stating when not to use this tool or naming filter-based alternatives.

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