Patent PreCheck — scoring reference

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses 'No network call', indicating a safe, local operation. It explains the tool lists pillars and band rules, providing behavioral context beyond what is in structured fields.

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 sentence that is front-loaded and contains no fluff. Every word earns its place, conveying purpose and a key behavioral trait.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains what the tool provides and its local nature. It could optionally describe the output format, but the current text is adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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?

There are no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%. The description adds meaning by specifying the output contains pillars and band rules used by precheck_score, which goes beyond the empty 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 lists patentability pillars and band rules used by precheck_score. It specifies 'No network call', distinguishing it as a local metadata tool. Verb and resource are specific, and it differentiates from siblings by its static, non-API-calling nature.

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 mentions it is used by precheck_score but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies reference use, but lacks clear guidance on scenarios or prerequisites for invoking this tool.

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