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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered for free. The description adds the key constraint that the scope is a single week, but says nothing about result ordering, volume, or pagination behavior for a weekly listing.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the format example attached inline rather than as an afterthought. No filler or repetition.

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-value explanation is unnecessary, and the read-only annotations cover safety. For a 1-param browse tool the description is nearly sufficient, though it could note whether a week returns the complete set or a page of results.

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 0% and the single 'week' param is an untyped-string in the schema, so the description carries the load. It does so well by specifying the ISO week format and giving a concrete example ('2026-W20'), which removes the main ambiguity about how to encode the value.

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?

Specific verb (Browse) plus resource (patent publications Google Patents indexes) and a clear scope (one ISO week). It distinguishes itself implicitly from the query-driven googlepatents_search sibling, but never names or contrasts with the other googlepatents_* tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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 implied by the weekly-browse framing, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as googlepatents_search (query-based) or googlepatents_detail (single publication). An agent must infer the routing on its own.

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