rep_required

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that each output row includes an official source and quote, which is useful context about result composition, but it never states that this is a read-only lookup, what happens with an unrecognized office code, or whether results can be empty.

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 dense sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. The embedded parentheticals for office values and the act vocabulary are slightly clumsy but each carries real information.

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 lookup with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, permissible office values, and act filtering semantics. Return-value detail is unnecessary since the output schema handles it, leaving no significant gap for an agent to call this correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well: it enumerates the accepted office values (US, EP, CN, JP, KR, AU, PCT) and explains that act restricts results to a single act from the vocabulary, pointing at rules_index to discover those values. The default-null behavior of act (return all acts) is only implied, not stated.

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 (representation rules of a patent office) and the exact question it answers: whether and when an applicant must act through a registered agent, with official source and quote per row. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like rules_index or route_windows, though it does reference rules_index as the vocabulary source.

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?

Guidance is implied through the mention that 'rules_index lists' the act vocabulary, which routes the agent to the sibling for discovering valid act values. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives or what it does not cover, leaving the agent to infer the selection conditions.

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