Patent PreCheck — rejection pattern preview

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

The description uses 'Preview' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that the tool has no side effects, nor does it mention required permissions, rate limits, or any behavioral traits. With no annotations, the description should provide more transparency.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core action. It avoids unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more informative without losing brevity.

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 tool has no output schema and 4 parameters with no required fields, but the description does not explain return format, pagination, or what a user should expect. Given the complexity, more context is needed for completeness.

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 schema already describes all parameters. The description does not add any extra meaning or usage hints for parameters like 'code', 'path', or 'tier'. As per guidelines, baseline 3 is appropriate when schema conveys full param semantics.

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's purpose: previewing examination-risk signals and similar patterns. The title and description together convey a specific function. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from siblings like precheck_prior_art or precheck_score, which could overlap in some contexts.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., precheck_prior_art for prior art, precheck_score for scoring). There are no examples or context about prerequisites or typical use cases.

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