googlepatents_detail

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the data source (Google Patents server-rendered pages), states the data is public, and clarifies the output is a normalized single-patent object. It stops short of describing failure behavior or rate limits, but for a straightforward read-only detail lookup, the behavioral context is solid.

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 front-loaded with the resource and main action, then lists returns, then finishes with the alternative tool reference. Every sentence adds distinct value, and the enumeration of fields is purposeful rather than filler, especially given the lack of an output schema.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description adequately enumerates the returned fields, including title, inventors, assignees, dates, legal status, classifications, claims, citations, family, and similar documents. It also covers input expectations with number format examples and points to the correct search tool for different use cases, making it complete for an agent to invoke.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a small amount beyond the schema by giving non-US publication number examples (EP/WO) and clarifying that `number` is a publication number, but this does not materially expand the schema's existing meaning, especially since the schema already provides the same primary example.

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 uses specific verbs and a clear resource: it returns a single patent's normalized detail, enumerating fields like title, claims, citations, and family. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from googlepatents_search by stating search is for keyword/inventor/assignee queries rather than a known publication number.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool (with a known publication number) and names the alternative: 'To search or browse by keyword, inventor, or assignee instead of a known publication number, use /googlepatents/search.' This provides clear routing without leaving inference to the agent.

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