get_cpc_info

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses that it returns classification details and different behaviors for section vs. subclasses. Does not mention rate limits, error cases, or authorization needs, but as a read-only lookup, the transparency is sufficient.

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?

Concise, with only necessary information. Front-loaded with clear 'USE THIS TOOL WHEN' section. No redundant sentences. Every sentence adds value.

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?

For a single-parameter lookup tool, the description covers usage, parameter semantics, and return structure. Output schema exists but description already details expected fields. No gaps identified.

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 0%, but description fully compensates with examples ('G06 for computing, G06N3/08 for neural networks') and explains the parameter's purpose. Adds significant value beyond the schema's type string.

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 verb 'look up' and resource 'CPC (Cooperative Patent Classification) code information'. The sibling tools are mostly ODP-related or status checks, making this tool distinct in purpose.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'when you need to understand what technology area a CPC code represents, or find related classification codes'. Does not mention when not to use, but the context is clear given the tool's simplicity.

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