get_patent_citations

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns both forward and backward citations and computes an impact score. However, it does not mention data freshness, pagination, or authorization requirements, which would enhance 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?

The description is succinct, front-loading the primary purpose in the first sentence. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or irrelevant information. It is well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 covers core functionality (citation network and impact score) but lacks detail on output format, impact score characteristics (e.g., range, interpretation), or any limitations. Given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, more context would improve usability.

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 input schema has one required parameter (patent_number) with no description. The description's 'Args' section provides an example ('11234567'), adding some meaning, but does not specify format details (e.g., whether leading zeros or country codes are needed). With 0% schema coverage, the description partially compensates but could be more precise.

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 retrieves a patent's citation network, showing both cited and citing patents, and calculates an impact score. It uses a specific verb ('get citation network') and resource (patent), effectively differentiating it from sibling tools like get_patent_details or get_patent_family.

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 describes what the tool does but provides no guidance on when to use it instead of alternatives. It implies usage for citation analysis but doesn't explicitly state contexts or exclusions, leaving room for ambiguity.

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