Citations_get_guidance

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description consistently reflects a read-only documentation tool with no destructive behavior. It adds useful behavioral context by listing available sections, indicating PTAB content was updated on 2026-01-17, and noting that sections are retrieved selectively for context-efficient workflows.

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-organized and front-loaded with a clear purpose, but it is longer than necessary and contains redundancy: the quick-reference section, the 'Available sections' list, and the later detailed bullet list overlap significantly. The emoji formatting helps scannability but does not fully justify the repetition.

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 low-complexity tool with one optional parameter, a readOnlyHint annotation, a fully documented schema, and an output schema, the description is complete. It lists every available guidance section, explains what each covers, and gives enough context for an agent to select the right section and invoke the tool successfully.

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 already documents the single 'section' parameter at 100% coverage, but the description adds substantial meaning by enumerating all valid section values, their purposes, and the default 'overview'. Since the schema has no enum, this enumeration is valuable beyond what the schema 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 opening sentence uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('selective USPTO Citation guidance sections'), and the quick-reference table clarifies it is a documentation/guidance tool rather than a data-retrieval tool. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling search/data tools, so an agent might initially wonder whether 'guidance sections' is a search operation.

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 quick-reference list maps user intents to specific sections (e.g., 'Which lane: OA citations or enriched citations?' → oa_citations), which gives strong in-tool usage guidance. It lacks explicit exclusions or instructions about when to use a sibling search tool instead, but the guidance-vs-search distinction is largely implied by the content.

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