google_patent_details

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses API credit cost (5 credits per request) and the return structure. However, it does not mention error handling, rate limits, or what happens if patent_id is invalid. The credit cost is helpful but incomplete for full behavioral 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?

Description is efficient at 5-6 sentences, front-loading the core purpose and key fields. Uses notes for critical format clarification and cost info. Could be slightly tighter but is well-structured and avoids verbosity.

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 the tool has three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers what the tool does, what it returns, and the crucial format constraint. It does not explain the html or language parameters beyond the schema, but those are standard. Overall adequate for an agent to use correctly.

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%, with parameter descriptions already clarifying the patent_id format. The description's format note is redundant with the schema. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond listing return fields, which is not directly parameter semantics. Baseline score 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 retrieves detailed information about a specific patent, listing key fields like title, PDF link, inventors, dates, and prior-art keywords. It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like google_patents which is a search endpoint.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on the required patent_id format, including an example and warning about the format returned by the sibling google_patents search. Implies this tool should be used after obtaining a patent ID from search results. Could be more explicit about when to use vs. other patent-related tools.

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