legal_fetch_patent_by_number

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses token efficiency, verified sources, and that it returns bibliographic records only. However, it does not mention rate limits, API key requirements, or error handling, which are common for such tools.

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 concise (four sentences), front-loads purpose, and efficiently covers key aspects: action, return fields, sources, token efficiency, example, and scope clarification. No wasted words.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (documenting return values) and the tool's moderate complexity, the description is adequate. It covers purpose, sources, and token efficiency, but could be improved by noting patent number format constraints or jurisdiction options.

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%, meaning the description adds no parameter details beyond the names. The first sentence mentions 'by number and jurisdiction' but does not describe formats, valid values, or defaults. Baseline expectation for low schema coverage is higher compensation, but description fails to provide it.

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 the tool fetches full bibliographic data for a patent by number and jurisdiction, listing returned fields (title, applicants, etc.) and sources. It distinguishes from siblings like legal_fetch_patent_citations by focusing on bibliographic data for a specific patent number.

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 use when needing bibliographic data by patent number but does not explicitly state when to avoid or contrast with alternatives like legal_search_patents_by_keyword. The example provides context but no direct when-to-use guidance.

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