legal_fetch_inventor_portfolio

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that results are 'public patent records only — not a professional reference check' and mentions 'Token-efficient', but it lacks details on rate limits, data freshness, or what happens if the inventor name is invalid. The behavioral traits are partially transparent but incomplete.

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 five sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and is relatively efficient. The example adds clarity, but some redundancy could be trimmed.

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 covers return value (patent list with titles, publication dates, jurisdictions in AI-Ready Markdown), sources (EPO OPS, USPTO PatentsView), and a limitation. Since an output schema exists, detailed output documentation is not needed. It is adequate for moderate complexity.

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 0%, so the description adds meaning beyond schema. It explains that 'assignee' is optional and provides an example. However, it does not specify the expected format of 'inventor_name' or 'assignee', nor does it explain default behavior or validation rules.

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 an inventor, optionally filtered by assignee.' This is a specific verb ('fetch') and resource ('patent portfolio'), and it distinguishes from siblings like legal_fetch_patent_by_number or legal_search_patents_by_keyword by focusing on inventor-based queries.

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 implies usage for inventor portfolio lookups with optional assignee filter, but it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., patent number or keyword searches). It mentions 'Verified sources' and 'Token-efficient' but lacks when-not or alternative tool references.

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