uspto_petition_decisions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds context about the types of petitions covered, which is useful, but doesn't disclose response format, pagination behavior, or rate limits. Since annotations cover the core behavior, a neutral score is appropriate.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Search USPTO petition decisions') before listing search dimensions. It avoids unnecessary words and is easy to scan. A slightly more structured layout (e.g., bullet points) might improve readability, but it is still well within acceptable length.

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 moderate complexity (7 optional parameters, no output schema) and existing annotations, the description covers the core function and search dimensions. However, it does not help distinguish this from the very similar sibling uspto_ptab_decisions, nor does it clarify whether results include decision text or only metadata. For a search tool with this level of complexity, it is adequate but not fully complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the structured schema already documents all seven parameters. The description mentions searchable dimensions (applicant name, decision type, technology center, date range) that map to q, filters, and range_filters, but it doesn't add syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is correct because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 searches USPTO petition decisions, names the verb 'Search', and specifies the resource. It lists concrete petition types (extension of time, revival, suspension) and search dimensions (applicant name, decision type, technology center, date range), making the purpose unmistakable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling uspto_ptab_decisions, but the name and subject matter are distinct enough.

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 for finding petition decisions, but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like uspto_ptab_decisions or uspto_search_applications. It gives examples of search fields but no guidance on when to use this vs. other USPTO tools. No exclusions or alternative routing is provided.

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