get_patent_family

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavior. It mentions what is returned (family members, continuations, divisionals, assignee citations) but lacks details on data source, pagination, or limitations. It adequately sets expectations for a read operation.

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 extremely concise with three sentences plus a parameter line. Every sentence is informative, and the structure is clear and front-loaded.

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 (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential functionality. It explains what family members are and how they are identified. Minor omission: it does not specify the output format (e.g., list of patent numbers or full patent objects).

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 has no description for patent_number (0% coverage), so the description compensates by providing format examples (e.g., '11234567' or 'US-11234567') and explaining it is a patent number. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 finds related patents in the same patent family, specifying continuations, divisionals, and assignee-cited patents. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_patent_citations or get_patent_details.

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 implies usage for finding family members but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives among siblings like get_patent_citations or search_patents. Context of use is implied but no exclusions.

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