ops_fulltext

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one real constraint: full text is only available for EP, WO and some European countries. However it says nothing about authentication, rate limits, or whether partial results are returned for unsupported jurisdictions.

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 short front-loaded sentences with no filler; the resource and its main constraint come first. Slightly telegraphic, but every clause carries information.

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 part values plus coverage note cover the essentials. Still missing the format/meaning of the required 'number' parameter and any auth or pagination context for a 3-param tool.

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 define the 'part' parameter's enum-like values, which is genuinely useful, but leaves 'number' (the required param) and the 'fmt' parameter completely undefined.

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?

Identifies the resource (EPO OPS fulltext) and names the three valid 'part' values (claims/description/abstract), which is enough to distinguish it from ops_biblio and ops_images. It never states the verb explicitly (retrieve/fetch), but the resource is unambiguous.

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?

There is a coverage constraint ('only EP, WO and some European countries') but no statement of when to choose this over ops_biblio/ops_images, no prerequisites, and no guidance on the required 'number' argument. Usage must be inferred entirely.

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