legal_fetch_patent_citations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the output is citation graph data only with no legal interpretation, and mentions token efficiency and verified sources. However, it does not cover potential errors, rate limits, or authentication requirements.

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 (3 sentences plus example and return note), front-loads the main action, and every sentence adds value. No redundant information.

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 parameters, no annotations, output schema present), the description covers the core purpose, input format via example, return type, and sources. It lacks edge-case handling, but is complete enough for typical use.

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 input schema has 2 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description adds value via an example ('EP1000000', 'EP') and clarifies jurisdiction context with 'Verified sources: EPO OPS (EP), USPTO PatentsView (US).' This helps, but parameter formats and valid values are not fully specified.

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 forward and backward citations for a patent', specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like legal_fetch_patent_by_number and legal_fetch_inventor_portfolio by focusing on citations. The mention of return format (AI-Ready Markdown) adds clarity.

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 mentions 'Useful for mapping technology lineage' and provides an example, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or include exclusions. Usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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