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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by listing the exact content sections returned (claims, citations, family, etc.), but says nothing about rate limits, auth, or whether missing patents error out.

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 tight sentence that front-loads the resource and ends with the identifier format. The content enumeration is slightly list-heavy but each item earns its place by telling the agent what will be returned.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description still helpfully previews them. For a single-record lookup the definition is nearly complete; the only real gap is the undocumented 'lang' parameter.

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%, so the description must carry the burden. It does supply the format for the required 'number' parameter via the US10758101B2 example, which is genuinely useful, but the optional 'lang' parameter is left completely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 names the specific resource (a single patent) and enumerates the returned sections (bibliographic data, abstract, claims, description, citations, family), which distinguishes it from a search/browse tool. It lacks an explicit verb and never names the sibling googlepatents_search, but the scope is unmistakable.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase 'by publication number (e.g. US10758101B2)' tells the agent what identifier to supply, but there is no statement of when to use this versus googlepatents_search or googlepatents_suggest. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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