patents.detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It lists the data categories returned but does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling. The detail-oriented focus implies read-only, but the agent lacks explicit safety cues.

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 sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's scope, listing key data categories. It is front-loaded with 'Full file-wrapper detail' but could be slightly more concise by omitting redundant details. It is well-structured and free of waste.

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 adequately explains the return content (bibliography, timeline, continuity, assignments, foreign priority) despite lacking an output schema. It does not address error conditions or response format, but the level of detail is sufficient for a single-parameter detail tool.

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 only parameter, applicationNumber, has a clear schema description ('6-10 digit USPTO application number'). The tool description adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema coverage, 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 provides 'full file-wrapper detail' for a US patent application and lists specific categories (bibliography, event timeline, continuity chain, assignments, foreign priority), making the purpose specific and distinguishable from siblings like patents.search and patents.documents.

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 for retrieving detailed information on a specific patent application but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., patents.search for finding patents, patents.documents for document retrieval). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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