googlepatents_classification

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It names exactly what the tool returns (official title, tree position, related symbols, scope-note), clarifies that it accepts symbols at any level, and states that the data is public and sourced from Google Patents' search API. The description lacks specific error-handling or response-format details, but for a read-only lookup tool the key behavior is well covered.

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 concise, well-structured, and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence contributes: purpose, return content, accepted input forms, and data source. No repetitive or wasteful phrasing.

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?

For a single-parameter, read-only lookup tool without an output schema, the description covers the critical context: what the tool does, what inputs are valid, and what output fields to expect. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 already documents the single 'code' parameter, but the description adds substantial meaning by explaining the accepted forms and giving explicit examples ('A', 'A61', 'A61K', 'A61K31/00'). This goes beyond 'CPC classification symbol' and helps the agent construct a valid input.

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 specifies the tool's function: look up a Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC) symbol and return its title, tree position, related symbols, and scope-note. It is not a tautology and clearly identifies the resource, but it does not explicitly contrast this with sibling tools like googlepatents_search or googlepatents_detail.

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 context: use this tool when you need classification metadata for a CPC symbol at any hierarchical level. It provides useful input guidance (e.g., 'A', 'A61', 'A61K31/00'), but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over a Google Patents alternative or when not to use it.

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