USPTO Patents

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses pagination behavior and the limit constraint (max 5000), but lacks details on whether the operation is read-only, any authentication needs, or rate limits.

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?

Single sentence with high information density. Purpose and key parameter behavior are front-loaded with no redundant words.

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?

No output schema, so the agent cannot infer return structure (fields, format). Pagination details are incomplete (no offset/cursor mechanism). Given two parameters and no output schema, the description fails to provide full context for reliable tool invocation.

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?

Schema coverage is 50%; the description adds missing semantics for the 'limit' parameter (pagination context and max value) beyond the schema's numeric constraints. For the 'assignee' parameter, the schema already provides an example, so marginal additional value.

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 'all patents assigned to a given entity,' which aligns with the tool name. It distinguishes from siblings uspto_patent_search (keyword search) and uspto_read_patent (single patent read) by specifying the focus on assignee-based listing.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. The description does not mention exclusions or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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 provided to indicate read-only or destructive behavior. Description implies it's a search (likely read-only), but does not explicitly confirm no side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits. Given zero annotations, the description should carry this burden but offers minimal transparency.

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?

Single sentence concisely covers purpose and output. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., separate lines for input vs output) but is efficient and front-loaded with the verb 'Search'.

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?

No output schema exists, so description should explain return format. It mentions fields (title, date, abstract, assignees) but lacks details on ordering, pagination, or sorting (e.g., 'recent matches' is vague). With 7 parameters and no output schema, more completeness would improve agent decision-making.

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?

Schema description coverage is only 29% (2 of 7 parameters have descriptions). The description briefly mentions key parameters (query, assignee, inventor, date range) but does not provide format details except for date_from (ISO format). Baseline 3 for low coverage, with modest compensation from description.

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?

Description clearly states it searches US patents by free-text query, assignee, inventor, and date range, returning specific fields. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like uspto_assignee_portfolio (assignee-specific) and uspto_read_patent (single patent read), making the purpose and scope unambiguous.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs siblings. However, the description implies it's the primary free-text search, and sibling names give some context. A clearer 'when to use' or exclusion criteria would improve this score.

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 provided; description carries burden. States 'Fetch' (read-only) and lists returned fields, but does not specify behavior on invalid patent numbers, rate limits, or authentication requirements. Adequate but lacks depth.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with verb and key fields. No wasted words; every part 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?

Given low complexity (single parameter, no output schema), description covers what the tool does and what it returns. Could mention error handling or data source (USPTO database). Good but not exhaustive.

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?

Schema has 100% coverage with example format for patent_number. Description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter description. Baseline score of 3 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?

Description clearly states verb 'Fetch', resource 'single patent's full record', and lists specific fields (title, date, abstract, claims, assignees, inventors). Distinct from siblings uspto_assignee_portfolio (assignee-focused) and uspto_patent_search (search).

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?

Implies use when you need full patent data for a known patent number, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No mention of alternatives like uspto_patent_search for broader queries.

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