ops_register

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it says nothing about authentication, rate limits, read-only nature, or response behavior. It only implies a read-style lookup of register data, leaving most behavioral traits to inference.

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 that front-loads the resource identity before the parameter hint, with no filler. It is appropriately sized, though the terseness is partly a symptom of under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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 not be explained, but with 0% parameter coverage and no annotations the description leaves the number format, the fmt semantics, and the tool's relationship to similar siblings unaddressed. For a 3-parameter EP-register tool this is thin.

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 must compensate. It usefully enumerates the valid constituent values (biblio, events, procedural-steps), which the schema does not declare as an enum, but it says nothing about the required 'number' parameter's expected format or what 'fmt'/'auto' controls.

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 identifies the resource as the European Patent Register for EP cases and lists the constituent data types, which is more specific than a bare name. However, it never states the verb/action (retrieve/query) and gives no clue how it differs from the overlapping sibling ops_biblio, whose name suggests it may return the same 'biblio' constituent.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ops_biblio, ops_legal_status, ops_family, or ops_fulltext, all of which appear in the sibling list. The only conditional hint is the constituent enumeration, which is parameter content rather than usage guidance.

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