Patent PreCheck — legal intelligence context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the function without mentioning safety (read-only vs. destructive), authentication needs, rate limits, or data sources. The returned 'snippet' nature is noted, but more details would aid agent decision-making.

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 a single concise sentence with no wasted words. However, it is quite brief and could benefit from additional context without losing conciseness.

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?

The description explains the output (short snippet of legal guidance) but lacks details on the output format, error handling, or optional behavior. Given the three parameters and no output schema, the description is somewhat complete but leaves room for improvement.

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?

Parameter schema coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for each parameter (code, path, filename). The tool description adds no additional parameter context beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 returns a 'short snippet of current US software-patent legal guidance relevant to this invention,' specifying the verb, resource, and context. It is distinct from sibling tools like precheck_prior_art and precheck_rejection_patterns, which focus on different aspects of patent analysis.

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 the tool should be used when legal guidance is needed but does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusions. Given the 10 sibling tools, more guidance on differentiation would be helpful.

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