uspto_ptab_proceeding_details

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this as a read operation, and the description consistently says 'Get details'. The description adds the trial-number scoping and example format, but no additional behavioral context such as rate limits or return structure. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the action, resource, and identifying input, and includes a helpful example at the end.

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 simple, single-parameter detail lookup with a read-only annotation and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and what input is needed. No missing information is apparent.

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 the single parameter already documented including an example. The description's reference to trial number adds no new semantic beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('details for a specific PTAB trial proceeding'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like uspto_ptab_proceedings (likely a list) by emphasizing 'specific' and 'by trial number'. The example trial number further clarifies the target entity.

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?

Clear context: this tool is for retrieving details when you already have a specific trial number. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when-not scenarios, but the 'by trial number' precondition and 'specific' wording make the intended use obvious.

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