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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and external-source nature are covered. The description adds useful scope about what the record contains (claims, citations, cited-by, legal status, family members), telling the agent how complete the result is, though it omits pagination/rate or auth context.

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?

Two tightly written sentences: the lookup behavior and returned contents come first, the routing alternative second. No filler, fully front-loaded.

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 an output schema present, the description need not detail return values, and purpose plus the sibling routing are clear. It is complete enough to invoke correctly, with only minor gaps around auth or rate considerations.

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% and both parameters are already documented with descriptions and an example. The description restates the number format example but adds no new semantics beyond the schema, so 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Fetch one Google Patents record by publication number'), gives a concrete example, and enumerates the record contents. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling discovery tool googlepatents_search.

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?

It names the alternative googlepatents_search and the use case that selects it (keyword, inventor, or assignee discovery), which implies this tool is for direct lookup by a known publication number. Clear routing, though the 'when to use this one' condition is left implicit rather than stated outright.

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