pph_routes

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the core selection rule—rows for to_office whose cited source names from_office as a partner—but it omits whether the operation is read-only, how results are paginated, and what happens when no rows match.

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?

The definition is one sentence with no filler, and the key constraint is front-loaded. The phrasing 'rows of to_office' is slightly awkward, but the compactness suits this query tool.

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 query tool with an output schema, the description covers the main selection logic and need not explain return shape. It remains incomplete on parameter value formats and usage context, which matters because schema descriptions are absent.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the roles of both parameters—to_office is the office whose PPH rows are listed and from_office is the partner named in the cited source—but it does not specify expected formats such as office codes.

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 (Patent Prosecution Highway rows) and the directional filter between to_office and from_office, making the purpose more than a restatement of the tool name. It does not distinguish this tool from sibling patent-data lookups such as route_windows, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

It gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and never names alternatives among the many sibling tools. At best, the filter wording implies it is for PPH route lookups between two offices, so usage must be inferred.

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