uspto_petition_decisions

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

The description is consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation, indicating a non-destructive search operation. However, it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination (though offset/limit parameters hint at it) or rate limits. The description adds minimal context beyond what annotations already provide.

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 primary purpose and includes concrete examples. Every word contributes meaning, and the format is concise without losing clarity.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the response format, pagination behavior, or what fields are returned. The agent would need to infer output structure from parameter names and examples, which is insufficient for a complex search tool.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by illustrating specific field examples (e.g., 'firstApplicantName:BRANT*', 'decisionTypeCodeDescriptionText:Denied') and filter patterns ('technologyCenter 3600'), which enrich the schema's generic descriptions.

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 specifies the resource (USPTO petition decisions) and the action (search), listing concrete types of petitions (extension of time, revival, suspension) and search fields (applicant name, decision type, technology center, date range). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like uspto_ptab_decisions and uspto_search_applications by focusing on petition decisions.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. While the purpose is clear, the lack of comparison with other USPTO tools or conditions for use limits usability.

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