usptoppubs_detail

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only states 'public data' and the source, but does not describe authentication expectations, failure modes, rate limits, or what the actual output structure looks like beyond enumerating content types.

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 reasonably compact, but the first and second sentences are largely redundant, both highlighting bibliographic data, abstract, description, and claims. The useful workflow note about using prior search values appears only in the second half, but overall it is still easy to parse.

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 there is no output schema and only two simple parameters with 100% schema coverage, the description provides enough context: what is fetched, how to obtain the parameters, and the public nature of the data. It lacks info on errors or authentication, but these are less critical for a straightforward read-only detail lookup.

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 already documents both parameters, including allowed source values. The description adds value by explaining that guid and source are intended to be passed through from a usptoppubs_search result, which is important workflow context not fully captured in the schema descriptions.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch a single USPTO Patent Public Search record's full text...' and enumerates exact content: bibliographic data, abstract, description, and claims. It also distinguishes itself from the search sibling by emphasizing a single record and GUID-based lookup.

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 explicitly says guid and source 'normally come straight from a prior /usptoppubs/search result's guid and database fields,' giving concrete workflow guidance. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for tool selection.

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