get_patent

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so reasonably: it discloses the return surface (classifications, citations, family ID, dates, inventors, assignees) and the DOCDB format requirement, and explains the X/Y citation markers, which is genuine domain context beyond the name. It omits edge cases like invalid-number behavior, but for a read-only lookup this is solid disclosure.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by return contents and the citation-marker interpretation. Every sentence contributes; nothing is padding.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is the only source for return-value expectations, and it enumerates the payload fields well. Minor gaps remain (no paging/error behavior), but for a single-record lookup it is close to complete.

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% and there is a single parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the DOCDB format constraint, but the schema's own example ('US-7650331-B1') already conveys the expected format, so the description adds little beyond 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get full patent details') and scopes it by publication number in DOCDB format, then enumerates the returned data. This effectively distinguishes it from narrower siblings like get_patent_claims or get_legal_status, though it never names those alternatives directly.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus siblings such as get_patent_claims, get_legal_status, or batch_get_patents for multiple numbers. The agent must infer that 'full details' means the general-purpose lookup, and there are no stated exclusions or prerequisites.

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