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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and open-world coverage are covered by structured fields. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that – no mention of result volume, pagination, or lag in indexing – so it does not exceed the annotation-provided baseline.

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 front-loaded sentence with no waste; scope and example are tight and immediately actionable.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and an output schema covering returns, the description supplies enough to call it correctly. Only minor value would be added by noting result size or indexing lag.

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% for the single parameter, so the format is already documented there. The description adds one concrete example ('2026-W20'), which is marginally useful but not substantive beyond the schema.

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 ('Browse'), resource ('patent publications Google Patents indexes') and scope ('one ISO week'). The week-scoping distinguishes it from the sibling googlepatents_search, so an agent can pick it without opening the schema.

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 week parameter implies usage ('browse what was indexed in week X'), but no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives such as googlepatents_search is given. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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