uspto_application_details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds that it returns 'all metadata' along with a specific list of fields, giving agents a concrete sense of what to expect in the response. No contradictions.

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?

Two concise sentences. The first states the action and object, the second elaborates on the return fields. No wasted words or redundant information.

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?

With a single well-documented parameter and read-only annotation, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does and what it returns. The field list compensates for the absence of an output schema, making this complete for a simple lookup tool.

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?

The input schema covers the single parameter fully, with description and format examples for both regular and PCT numbers. The tool description adds no further parameter details, so the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage 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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves full patent application data by application number, listing key metadata fields. This distinguishes it from related sibling tools like uspto_search_applications (search) and uspto_application_assignments (assignments).

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 use case is clear: when you have an application number and need comprehensive details. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the focus on 'full data' implies this is the detail endpoint versus search. No misleading guidance.

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