get_patent_details

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It lists what the tool returns but does not disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., read-only, authentication, rate limits, or error handling). Minimal transparency beyond output fields.

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?

Extremely concise: two short sentences that first state purpose and outputs, then define the only parameter. No redundant information; every sentence is valuable and well-structured with proper front-loading.

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's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately covers what the tool does, what it returns, and how to use the parameter. Could mention error behavior (e.g., patent not found) but not essential.

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 coverage is 0%, but description compensates with a clear explanation of the patent_number parameter including example formats ('11234567' or 'US-11234567'), adding meaningful guidance beyond the schema's type constraint.

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?

Clearly states it gets complete patent details and lists returned fields (title, abstract, inventor, assignees, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on analysis, comparison, or specific aspects like claims or citations.

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?

Implies usage when full details of a specific patent are needed, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternative tools (e.g., get_patent_claims for claims-only queries). The description lacks usage exclusions or context-appropriate guidance.

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