get_patent_family

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the two-step mechanism (BigQuery family_id lookup, then a broad unfiltered retrieval of ALL members), which sets expectations about scope and latency. It omits edge-case behavior (e.g., what happens when no family_id exists) and any auth/rate-limit notes.

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 with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by the lookup mechanism and the return shape. Every sentence carries information, including the BigQuery detail, which usefully hints at a multi-step lookup.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description correctly enumerates the return payload (family_id, member_count, and member fields), which is exactly what an agent needs to consume the result. It stops short of describing failure/empty-result behavior for an unknown or family-less publication number.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single parameter is documented with format examples in the schema, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds nothing about the identifier format beyond what the schema already shows.

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 and resource ('Get patent family members for a patent') and explains the domain concept ('same invention filed in different countries'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like get_patent, get_patent_claims, and get_cited_by.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource name rather than stated: an agent can infer you call this when you want international family members instead of the patent record itself, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative such as get_patent.

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