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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add context beyond that. It discloses the data source ('USPTO Open Data Portal') and enumerates the exact return fields (trial number, decision type, issue date, outcomes, issue types, statutes/rules, document title + URI), giving the agent a clear expectation of what will come back even though there is no output scchema.

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 three sentences plus a source attribution, with the primary action and resource front-loaded. Every sentence contributes: what it searches, what it returns, how to filter, and where the data comes from. No filler or repetition of the tool name or title.

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 8 parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the core concerns: scope, filters, and return shape. It does not explicitly explain pagination or offset/limit semantics, but those are already described in the schema. The only real gap is not contrasting itself with sibling tools, but for a search operation that is a moderateness.

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%, so all parameters are already documented with types and matching field names. The description adds value by grouping `query`, `patent_number`, `trial_type`, and date range as 'filters', but it does not provide any syntax or format details beyond what the schema already covers. Hence the 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?

The description opens with 'Search USPTO PTAB decision documents', a specific verb and resource, and further narrows the scope to institution decisions, final written decisions, and appeal outcomes in IPR/PGR/CBM trials. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ptab_search_documents (broader document search) and ptab_recent_decisions (recent-only) without needing a direct mention.

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 implies when to use the tool by listing available filters (free-text `query`, `patent_number`, `trial_type`, date range) and stating it returns decision documents. However, it does not explicitly address when to choose this over siblings such as ptab_search_documents or ptab_recent_decisions, nor does it provide any exclusion criteria.

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