ops_legal_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral detail about the return shape (flattened summary by default, raw JSON on request, events grouped by family member), but says nothing about rate limits, authentication, or pagination behavior for large families.

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 tight sentences with no filler, and the most decision-relevant information (what it returns, and the raw toggle) is front-loaded. Slight density from packing event types and output modes into one clause, but nothing is wasted.

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 not strictly required, and the read-only safety profile is covered by annotations. What remains missing is input guidance — number format and the meaning of `fmt` — which matters for a tool whose only required argument is an unstructured string.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it only explains one of three parameters properly: raw=true yields raw JSON while the default is a flattened summary. The required `number` parameter (format expectations) and `fmt` (default "auto") are completely unexplained, leaving an agent guessing about accepted input syntax.

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States a specific verb+resource combination: retrieving EPO OPS INPADOC legal status events (valid, withdrawn, expired, annual fees), broken down per family member with dates, codes, and descriptions. It's clearly distinguishable from bibliographic or family lookups semantically, but it never names a sibling (ops_biblio, ops_family, ops_register) or states the boundary, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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 implies the use case (you want legal-status event history) and gives one concrete selection rule for the output mode (default flattened summary vs. raw=true for raw JSON). However it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance relative to the many ops_* siblings, nor prerequisites such as required patent number formats or whether an OPS key is needed.

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