patents.documents

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

With no annotations, the description describes the return fields and example document types, but does not disclose if the list is paginated, if it's read-only, or any side effects. More detail on behavior would improve 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?

Two sentences: first states purpose with examples, second lists return fields. No filler, front-loaded, efficient.

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 no output schema, the description mentions return fields but omits pagination, ordering, or error conditions. Still reasonably complete for a simple list tool with one parameter.

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 covers 100% but the description adds valuable context: '6-10 digit USPTO application number.' This format and provenance info goes beyond the schema's 'string' type.

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 uses specific verb 'List' and resource 'every document in a US patent application file wrapper', with concrete examples (Office Actions, IDS, etc.). It clearly distinguishes from siblings 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 states what the tool does and implicitly requires an application number, but does not explicitly guide when to use this vs. alternatives or when not to use it.

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