uspto_application_assignments

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true correctly indicates a read operation, and the description adds value by listing specific output fields (conveyance type, assignor, assignee, dates). This provides behavioral context beyond the annotation alone.

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 concise (20 words in two sentences), front-loaded with the verb 'Get', and contains no redundant information. Every sentence adds value.

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?

The description covers purpose, output fields, and parameter adequately for a simple lookup tool. With no output schema and no nested objects, it provides sufficient context for an AI to use the tool correctly, though it lacks mention of potential limitations like pagination.

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 100% description coverage for the single parameter (application_number) with a basic description. The description itself adds no additional semantic information about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('assignment records for a patent application'). It mentions the key fields returned (conveyance type, assignor, assignee, dates), which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like uspto_application_details.

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 implies the tool is for obtaining assignment records, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide context on limitations or prerequisites. The usage context is clear enough for an AI to infer.

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