ops_biblio

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it only discloses one trait: the number is auto-normalized to docdb format. It says nothing about OPS authentication requirements, rate limits, behavior on invalid/unknown numbers, or field coverage variance across offices.

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?

Front-loads the resource and its payload contents, then immediately follows with the practical input rule and examples. Dense but every clause is doing work; no filler.

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 no explanation, and the numbering guidance is genuinely valuable. However, for a tool in a crowded ops_* family with zero annotation coverage, the absence of any authentication, error-mode, or sibling-routing information leaves real gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does an excellent job on `number` with five format examples across EP/TW/US, but `fmt` (default 'auto') is left completely unexplained, so half the parameters remain semantically opaque.

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?

Names a specific resource and enumerates exactly what the bibliographic payload contains (IPC/CPC, applicants, citations, family id), which distinguishes it from ops_fulltext, ops_legal_status, and ops_family by content rather than by name alone. It never explicitly names a sibling, so an agent must still infer which of the many ops_* tools to pick.

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 gives concrete input guidance (write the number as published) but never states when to choose this tool over ops_fulltext, ops_register, or ops_family, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. Usage is implied through the example numbers only.

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