Patent PreCheck

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

The description adds behavioral info: 'No network call.' This indicates a local, read-only operation. However, no annotations exist, so the description carries full burden; it could mention more about the static nature of the data or return format. Adequate but not rich.

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 clear, front-loaded sentences with no wasted words. Concise and well-structured.

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?

Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (list with statutes, weights, band rules) and its purpose. A minor gap: 'band rules' not elaborated, but likely contextually clear.

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?

No parameters exist in the input schema, so the description does not need to add param info. Baseline score of 4 applies.

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 clearly states the tool lists the five patentability pillars with statutes and weights, and band rules. It specifies the use case 'explain a score to the user' and distinguishes from siblings by linking to precheck_score.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to explain a score to the user.' This provides a clear usage context. While it does not explicitly list when not to use, the sibling names imply alternatives for scoring and review, making the guidance sufficient.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explains the return values in detail (score, band, pillars, etc.), which adds transparency about output. However, it does not mention side effects, idempotency, failure modes, or prerequisites (e.g., authentication), limiting depth for a tool that may process code submissions.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then lists return details efficiently. It is reasonably concise, covering essential information without unnecessary words. While it could be shortened slightly, it is well-structured for quick scanning.

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?

The description provides a thorough breakdown of return values, compensating for the lack of an output schema. However, it omits usage guidelines and behavioral context (e.g., whether the tool mutates state or requires permissions), leaving some contextual gaps for agents to infer, especially given the moderate complexity of three parameters.

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 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents each parameter thoroughly. The description adds minimal extra meaning, merely restating that the text is passed inline via 'code'. It does not enrich parameter understanding beyond the schema baseline, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool runs a patentability pre-check and returns a score, which is specific and action-oriented. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from its siblings 'precheck_pillars' and 'precheck_start_review', missing an opportunity to clarify the exact role of this tool.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'precheck_pillars' or 'precheck_start_review'. There is no mention of prerequisites, expected use cases, or conditions that would make this tool more appropriate than siblings, leaving the agent without explicit decision-making context.

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

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

Description mentions it returns a URL and starts a paid review but lacks details on side effects, permissions, or data modifications, which is partially mitigated by the read-only nature implied by returning a URL.

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 sentences, first sentence states the core action, second provides usage guidance; no redundancy, every word adds value.

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 0-parameter tool, description covers return value, context, and sequence; could elaborate on what 'interactive code review' entails but is sufficient.

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?

No parameters (0), so schema coverage is 100%; description adds no parameter info beyond schema, earning a baseline of 4.

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 clearly states the tool returns a URL for starting a paid live review that strengthens pillars, distinguishing it from siblings precheck_pillars and precheck_score.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use after a precheck_score when the user wants to act on the result,' providing clear context and sequence, though it does not list specific alternatives or when not to use.

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