uspto_ptab_proceedings

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, signaling a read operation. The description adds context about searchable facets and proceeding types, but does not disclose details like default result limits, pagination behavior, or exact response shape. Given the readOnlyHint covers safety, this is adequate but not enriched.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence stating the resource and purpose, followed by a compact list of search dimensions. Every phrase earns its place, with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 no required parameters, a 100% schema-covered parameter set, readOnlyHint=true, and no output schema, the description covers the core search scope, available filters, and domain context. It does not describe response format or pagination, but given the presence of rich annotations and complete schema, this does not create a significant gap.

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%, so parameter names and descriptions exist. The description reinforces which query fields are meaningful for this domain (e.g., trial number, patent owner, petitioner, technology center, status, date range), which helps an agent translate natural-language intent into schema-patterned queries like 'patentOwnerData.patentOwnerName:Apple'. It adds value beyond the schema by providing domain-specific search examples.

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 begins with a specific verb ('Search') and a clear resource ('PTAB trial proceedings'), enumerating the proceeding types (IPR, PGR, CBM, derivation), and lists distinct search dimensions (trial number, patent owner, petitioner, technology center, status, date range). This distinguishes it from siblings like uspto_search_applications or uspto_ptab_proceeding_details, which target different data or granularity.

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 conveys when to use the tool: when searching PTAB trial proceedings across specified proceeding types and by multiple criteria. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name an alternative, but the clear scoping to PTAB trial proceedings with example query fields implies the appropriate context, which is sufficient for sibling differentiation among the many USPTO-related tools.

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