Citations_get_available_fields

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces that it only returns field information, which aligns. It does not describe the output format or any potential limitations (e.g., whether the field list is exhaustive or versioned), but for a zero-parameter read-only tool, the description is adequate. No contradiction found.

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 and well-organized: a clear primary statement, a block of alternative search terms, a 'Use for' section, and a 'Returns' statement, all in a few sentences. It ends with a pointer to a sibling tool, making every sentence earn its place.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool, the description fully covers what the agent needs: purpose, usage scenarios, output, and differentiation from alternatives. The output schema is present, so no need to describe the return structure in detail. The guidance to another tool for advanced syntax is a bonus.

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 schema has no parameters, and the description clarifies what the tool returns ('Complete field list with descriptions and types'). Since there are no parameters to document, the description provides sufficient context about the output, which adds value 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 retrieves searchable fields from the USPTO Enriched Citation API, with a specific verb 'Get' and resource. It includes synonyms and use cases, making it distinct from siblings like Citations_get_oa_citation_fields and Citations_get_guidance, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with these.

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 lists when to use: 'Use for: Field discovery, query syntax validation, understanding data structure.' It also gives an alternative for 'field selection strategies and Solr/Lucene syntax examples' by directing to Citations_get_guidance(section='fields'), making the distinction clear.

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