patents.documents

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

No annotations provided, so the description must convey all behavioral traits. It states the tool lists every document but does not disclose potential limitations (e.g., pagination, authentication, rate limits, or error handling for invalid application numbers). Missing key context for a mutation-free read operation.

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 with no wasted words. The action ('list every document') is front-loaded, followed by document types and return fields. Efficient and clear.

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 a single required parameter and no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, document types, and return fields. It misses details about pagination or filtering, but for a list tool of this nature, it is mostly complete.

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 parameter 'applicationNumber' is well-described in the schema as a 6-10 digit USPTO number. With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3. The description does not add further semantic value beyond the schema.

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 every document in a US patent application file wrapper, specifies document types (Office Actions, IDS, claims, notices of allowance), and lists returned fields (code, description, official date, download URL). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like patents.search and patents.detail.

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 when a user needs documents for a specific application, but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives like patents.detail or patents.search. No when-not or prerequisite conditions are mentioned.

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