legal_fetch_inventor_portfolio

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Read-only. No side effects. Idempotent,' which is critical behavioral info. It also mentions fuzzy match behavior, caching (24-hour cache), and verified sources (EPO OPS + USPTO).

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 with clear front-loading of the main action. It includes useful details like fuzzy match, example values, and even feedback instructions. While not extremely concise, every sentence adds value, and the length is justified given the complexity.

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?

The description explains what the output contains (patent numbers, titles, filing dates, jurisdictions, current status), which compensates for the presence of an output schema (context signal). It also mentions sources and caching, providing a complete picture of the tool's behavior.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description explains both parameters in detail: inventor_name (required, fuzzy match, example) and assignee (optional, example). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema of just types and required fields.

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+resource: 'Fetch the patent portfolio for a named inventor with optional assignee filter.' It clearly states the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'legal_search_patents_by_keyword' by specifying when to use each.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('when researching an inventor's work or a company's patent portfolio') and provides an alternative ('Use legal_search_patents_by_keyword instead when you need patents by topic not by inventor.'). It also warns about fuzzy match potentially returning many results.

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