rights_alive

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool evaluates invalidation, abandonment, and term expiration beyond simple registration status, and that behavior changes if registered-ledger lookup is configured. It does not mention error handling or side effects, but the core behavioral traits are transparent.

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 compact, front-loaded with the main purpose, and each sentence adds a distinct piece of information: purpose, scope, usage timing, accepted formats, and conditional behavior. There is no filler or redundancy.

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?

For a one-parameter read-only status check, the description explains the input format, the meaning of the result, and conditional output enrichment. It does not specify a formal output schema or error behavior, but at this complexity level the provided information is nearly 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?

The input schema already fully describes the single 'number' parameter, including format, hyphen optionality, and prefix rules. The description reinforces this with examples but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('판정합니다') and identifies the resource as a single patent/utility model number. It clearly states the output is an 'alive' status that accounts for more than just registration, which distinguishes it from generic search or citation tools.

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?

It explicitly instructs agents to use this tool before making any patent-based claim, giving a clear trigger condition. However, it does not name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, so some routing is left to inference.

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