route_windows

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It implies a stateless, read-only lookup by stating it takes no application number or date, and an output schema covers return values, but it says nothing about office coverage, behavior for unsupported offices, or data currency.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with purpose followed by the scoping caveat. Little waste, though the second sentence reads as a defensive disclaimer rather than positive guidance.

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 simple one-parameter lookup with an output schema, the description covers purpose and scope boundaries adequately. It falls short on the practical detail an agent needs to call it successfully: what office identifier format is expected and which offices are supported.

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 single required 'office' parameter has 0% schema description coverage and no enum. The description only implies the parameter's concept ('windows of a patent office') and gives no guidance on accepted values or format (e.g., 'US' vs 'USPTO'), leaving the only parameter under-specified.

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 clearly: generic procedural time windows for a patent office, with a concrete example (PCT national phase limit in months from priority date). It also rules out a related but different capability ('never a last day for a specific application'), so an agent can distinguish it from deadline-calculation tools, though it doesn't name a specific sibling.

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 states the usage context (generic office-level windows) and an explicit exclusion (not application-specific last days, takes no application number or date). The gap is that it doesn't name an alternative tool to use for application-specific deadlines, leaving the agent to infer the routing.

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