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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation by returning data, but does not clarify permissions, rate limits, or whether the data is cached or live. For a retrieval tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists the returned fields without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple 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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more context about the returned data's structure and behavior. It lists the fields but does not explain their format or any limitations. For a read tool with a single parameter, it is minimally adequate but missing important details.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'patent_id'. The description does not add any meaning beyond what is in the schema, such as the format or constraints of the patent ID. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is low but parameter count is 1 and straightforward.

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 states a specific verb ('get') and resource ('patent detail'), and then enumerates the fields returned (claims, citations, family, assignee, status). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like compare_claims or search_prior_art, though it doesn't explicitly mention those alternatives.

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?

The description implies usage by listing the data types available, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like compare_claims or search_prior_art. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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