FPD_get_guidance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key traits: it's a read-only operation (implied by 'get'), offers token reduction benefits (80-95%), and provides targeted guidance. However, it lacks details on potential errors, rate limits, or authentication requirements, which prevents a score of 5.

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 front-loaded with a clear purpose and quick reference, but it includes repetitive or verbose elements, such as listing sections twice (in the quick reference and 'Available sections') and adding marketing-like benefits (e.g., 'Context Efficiency Benefits'). Some sentences could be trimmed without losing essential information.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is complete enough. It explains the purpose, usage, parameters, and benefits, and since an output schema exists, it doesn't need to detail return values. The description adequately covers what users need to know to invoke the tool correctly.

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 has 0% description coverage for its single parameter 'section', but the description compensates fully by listing all available sections (e.g., 'overview', 'workflows_pfw') with brief explanations. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema, making the parameter's purpose and options clear to users.

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's purpose: to 'Get selective USPTO FPD guidance sections for context-efficient workflows.' It specifies the verb ('get'), resource ('USPTO FPD guidance sections'), and benefit ('context-efficient workflows'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its siblings (e.g., document-focused tools like FPD_get_document_content_with_mistral_ocr), which would be needed for a score of 5.

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 description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives through the 'QUICK REFERENCE' section, which maps specific questions (e.g., 'Find petitions by company/art unit') to recommended sections (e.g., 'tools'). It also lists all available sections with brief descriptions, helping users select the appropriate one based on their workflow needs.

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