legal_fetch_patent_citations

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 the source (EPO OPS), cache duration (24-hour), normalization behavior, and return structure (citing and cited patents with filing dates and titles). No contradiction with annotations.

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 sections: purpose, parameter details, use-case, alternative, source, cache, and fallback. Every sentence adds value, but it is somewhat verbose; slight trimming could improve conciseness.

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 moderate complexity (2 params, output schema exists), the description is highly complete: it covers input formats, normalization, return structure, use-case, alternative, source reliability, cache policy, and a feedback mechanism. No gaps.

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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds helpful examples for patent_number (EP1000000, CN120586032, etc.) and clarifies jurisdiction defaults and normalization behavior, going beyond the schema.

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 forward and backward citation chains for a specific patent, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from the sibling tool legal_search_patents_by_keyword by specifying the use case of prior art citation chains vs topic search.

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 explicit when-to-use: 'Use this when building a prior art citation chain for a specific patent you already have.' It also gives an alternative tool (legal_search_patents_by_keyword) and includes a fallback mechanism via report_feedback if the response doesn't serve the need.

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