legal_fetch_patent_by_number

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds value by stating 'Read-only. No side effects. Idempotent.', and further discloses automatic normalization, 24-hour cache, and verified source (EPO OPS). No contradictions.

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?

Approximately 130 words, front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value: action, read-only, parameter examples, normalization, output fields, usage guidance, caching, and feedback fallback. No superfluous content.

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 tool's simplicity (2 params, output schema present), the description is complete: it covers input format, behavior, output summary, caching, alternative tools, and a fallback mechanism. The output schema already describes return structure, so the summary is sufficient.

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%, but the description enriches parameter semantics with examples (e.g., EP1000000, CN120586032), clarifies jurisdiction default and optional nature, and explains normalization behavior. This goes beyond schema descriptions.

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 explicitly states the verb 'fetch' and resource 'patent details by patent number and jurisdiction'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like legal_search_patents_by_keyword and legal_fetch_patent_citations by specifying the use case 'when you have 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 provides clear when-to-use guidance: 'Use this when you have a specific patent number. Use legal_search_patents_by_keyword instead when you only have keywords.' It also mentions the optional jurisdiction hint and includes a fallback instruction to report feedback if needed.

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