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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It only states 'deterministically generate and return' and mentions tokkyo_check is included, but does not disclose any side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or error behavior. The description is insufficient for an agent to understand implications.

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 concise (three sentences) and front-loaded with the core action. However, it lacks a structured breakdown and mixes output details with equivalence statements. Still, it is efficient and avoids verbose language.

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 12 parameters, no schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain return structure, parameter constraints, or how inputs relate to the output. The agent lacks sufficient context to use the tool correctly.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any of the 12 parameters (e.g., title, ipc, facts). The agent receives no guidance on parameter meaning or usage, making correct invocation difficult.

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 generates a patent specification skeleton from an invention, with specific output components (tokkyo.json, claims, description sections, abstract). It also references sibling tools to indicate similarity to other tools, establishing a clear identity.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like tokkyo_analyze or tokkyo_check. It only mentions equivalence to other tools, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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