uspto_application_details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by enumerating the fields returned (filing date, grant date, status, inventors, applicant, patent number, type, prosecution details), which is behavioral in that it tells the agent what to expect in the response. This goes beyond the annotations, which say nothing about output content. No contradiction with annotations.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action ('Get full patent application data by application number') and then lists the key data fields. There is no fluff or redundant wording. Every part earns its place, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 has only one parameter and no output schema, the description serves as the primary guide for what the response will contain. It lists a comprehensive set of fields (filing date, grant date, status, inventors, applicant, patent number, type, prosecution details), which is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and expected result. The description is complete for a simple lookup tool, with no obvious gaps like error handling or pagination that would be necessary.

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 description for application_number is already detailed, including examples and PCT encoding instructions (e.g., '14412875' and 'PCTUS0719317'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond restating that the tool operates by application number. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies; the description does not compensate or add new meaning.

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 action: 'Get full patent application data by application number.' It specifies the resource (patent application) and the key identifier (application number), and lists the types of metadata returned (filing date, grant date, status, inventors, etc.). This distinguishes it from siblings like uspto_search_applications (search vs. retrieve) and other application-specific tools (continuity, assignments, transactions).

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 usage when you have an application number and want comprehensive details, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. For example, it doesn't say 'For searching by other criteria, use uspto_search_applications' or 'For continuity data, use uspto_application_continuity.' The guidance is implicit rather than explicit, so it earns a mid-range score.

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