fee_schedule

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that results are in-force as of a date, include currency, and carry a per-row official source and quote, which signals authoritative sourcing. It says nothing about authentication, rate limits, error behavior for unknown offices, or whether historical dates are supported — gaps for a zero-annotation tool.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with the scoping parameter and default stated early, and the enumerated fee categories plus row provenance all earning their place. No filler or restatement of the name.

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?

For a two-parameter read-only lookup with an output schema present, this covers the essential semantics (what is returned, date framing, provenance). The missing piece is office identifier conventions and behavior on unsupported offices/dates.

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, and it does for as_of: explicit YYYY-MM-DD format and a default of today UTC. For the required office parameter it only says 'of a patent office', leaving the accepted identifier form (e.g., EPO vs. EP) unspecified — the single biggest remaining ambiguity.

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 a specific resource (official patent-office fees) and enumerates the categories returned (filing, search, examination, grant, renewal), so an agent knows exactly what this tool produces. No explicit verb ('returns'/'fetches') and no sibling comparison, but no sibling in the list covers fees, so ambiguity is low.

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?

Usage is only implied by the resource itself — an agent can infer this is the tool for cost lookups. There is no statement of when to prefer it over alternatives, no prerequisite (e.g., office code must be known beforehand), and no exclusions or caveats about jurisdictions not covered.

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