uspto_ptab_proceeding_details

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive nature, so the description doesn't need to restate that. It adds no extra behavioral context like what fields are returned or any error handling, which is acceptable for a simple fetch but not rich.

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?

A single, direct sentence with an example, no filler. The essential information is front-loaded and immediately actionable.

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?

For a tool with only one required parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is sufficient to guide a call. It doesn't explain what 'details' includes, but that's not necessary for invocation.

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 fully describes the trial_number parameter (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds a concrete example ('IPR2025-01319') that clarifies the expected format, providing marginal value beyond the schema.

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 retrieves details for a specific PTAB trial proceeding identified by trial number, with an example. This distinguishes it from list/search tools like uspto_ptab_proceedings, which would not take a specific trial number.

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?

It implies the tool is used when you have a trial number and want detailed information, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternative tools. There is no explicit routing guidance relative to siblings.

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