legal_fetch_inventor_portfolio

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

The description reinforces annotations with statements like 'Read-only. No side effects. Idempotent.' and adds valuable behavioral context such as 'Fuzzy match — common names may return many results' and '24-hour cache'. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. It includes all necessary information without redundancy, though it is slightly lengthy due to the added parameter details and feedback instruction. Very effective overall.

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 tool with 2 parameters and an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, behavioral traits (fuzzy match, cache, source), and even includes a fallback to report_feedback. It is fully complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds the fuzzy match warning for inventor_name, which provides critical behavioral context beyond the schema description. This additional information justifies a score of 4.

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 'Fetch the patent portfolio for a named inventor with optional assignee filter', specifying a distinct verb and resource. It also differentiates from the sibling tool legal_search_patents_by_keyword, making it easy for an AI agent to select the correct tool.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Use this when researching an inventor's work or a company's patent portfolio. Use legal_search_patents_by_keyword instead when you need patents by topic not by inventor.' This clearly tells the agent when to use this tool and when to choose an alternative.

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