ops_register

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact the annotations do not: this is scoped to EP cases only, so non-EP numbers will not work. It says nothing about failure modes for invalid or non-EP numbers, rate limits, or payload size, though the output schema removes the need to explain return shape.

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?

A single compact sentence with no padding, and the resource identification is front-loaded before the parameter hint. It is efficient, though the terseness edges into under-specification rather than being exemplary.

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?

Although an output schema exists (relieving the description of explaining return values) and annotations cover the safety profile, the 0% schema coverage across three parameters means the description should explain number format and fmt. It also leaves the ops_biblio overlap and the EP-only input constraints unaddressed, so an agent could easily misroute or pass a malformed number.

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 of parameter semantics, and it only partially delivers: it explains what constituent accepts (biblio, events, procedural-steps) but not the default, and it says nothing about the required number (application vs. publication format) or what fmt='auto' means versus other values. Two of three parameters remain undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

The description names the resource (European Patent Register, EP cases) and enumerates the constituents it can return (biblio, events, procedural-steps), so the general shape of the operation is inferable. However, it never states a verb or that it retrieves register data, and it does not distinguish itself from the sibling ops_biblio, which appears to overlap directly with constituent=biblio. The overlap with siblings is unresolved, leaving only a vague purpose.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus ops_biblio, ops_legal_status, or ops_family, despite an obvious functional overlap with ops_biblio. The only quasi-guidance is the constituent enumeration, which is parameter-level, not usage-level. Exclusions and alternatives are entirely absent.

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