uspto_ptab_decisions

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is already known. The description adds context about available search dimensions but does not disclose behavior such as pagination, query syntax nuances, or result format. This is acceptable given the annotation coverage, but not particularly rich.

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 three short sentences that front-load the core purpose and key search fields. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or filler text.

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 search tool with fully documented parameters in the schema, the description adequately covers the main use cases and searchable dimensions. It does not detail return values or pagination behavior, but the schema documents limit/offset, and the tool's purpose is straightforward.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by surfacing high-level search dimensions (trial type, outcome, patent owner, grant date range) that map to the parameters, giving users a conceptual handle beyond the individual parameter descriptions.

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 function: 'Search PTAB trial decisions.' It specifies the resource (PTAB trial decisions) and the action (search), and lists specific decision types (institution, final written) that distinguish it from sibling tools like uspto_ptab_proceedings or uspto_petition_decisions.

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 explains what users can search by (trial type, outcome, patent owner, grant date range) but offers no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over similar PTAB sibling tools. It implies usage for trial decision searches but does not state exclusions or name alternatives.

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