feature_separate_eval_check

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that patent records query only the CLMS field from the PatSnap host, require allow_network=true after user confirmation, are checked locally for free-text records, and do not invoke Judge. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond what the schema provides.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by concise edge-case-specific guidance. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or padding text.

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 explains the key behavioral distinction, but it leaves operational ambiguity around how to specify a patent record vs a free-text record. Since there are three parameters with zero schema description coverage, the description should more explicitly connect record_id and patent_number to the two record types. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but parameter usage remains incomplete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain allow_network's role and links network permission to patent vs free-text record types. However, it does not explicitly define how record_id and patent_number map to these record types or when each is required, leaving some parameter semantics implicit.

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 states a specific action ('Check whether one record is evaluable') and adds a clear differentiator: it does so 'without calling Judge.' This separates it from the sibling tools feature_separate_eval_run (executes evaluation) and feature_separate_eval_status (reports status).

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool, distinguishing patent records from free-text records and specifying network requirements for each. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but the behavior is contextually clear.

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