get_patent

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds context about token consumption and section selection, but does not discuss output behavior, error handling, or data freshness. The description is not misleading, but it only partially discloses the tool's behavior beyond the name/schema.

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—two short sentences in the first paragraph and a brief guiding note in the second. It is front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 the tool has an output schema and a detailed input schema, the description adequately covers purpose and usage. It may not explain return format or provider selection, but those are either in the schema or exposed via sibling tools. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke the tool effectively.

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 100%, and each parameter has detailed descriptions (e.g., sections list, max_chars bounds, publication_number normalization). The tool description reinforces the context-saving aspect of section selection but does not add much beyond the schema. Baseline 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 '公開番号を指定して特許の中身を取得する' (get patent contents by publication number), which is a specific verb+resource combination. It further lists distinct use cases like checking claims, reading specification, and understanding citations/family, which differentiates it from sibling tools like search_patents and find_similar_patents.

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 specifies when to use the tool ('請求項の文言確認、明細書の読み込み、引用関係やファミリーの把握に使う') and advises to select only needed sections to avoid wasting context. It lacks explicit exclusions or direct comparisons to alternatives, but the provided use cases give clear situational guidance.

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