uspto_ptab_proceedings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope by listing the proceeding types included, but it does not describe the response format, pagination behavior, or any API quirks. With annotations carrying the safety burden, a 3 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 sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then lists the searchable dimensions. It has zero filler and every phrase earns its place.

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 tool exposes 7 optional parameters with full schema documentation, and the annotations cover the safety profile. Yet with no output schema, the description does not clarify what the search returns (list structure, fields, or how it relates to the detail tool). This is a noticeable but not crippling gap for a straightforward search API.

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 baseline is 3. The description lists searchable attributes (trial number, patent owner, etc.) which loosely map to q/filters/range_filters, but it does not add meaning beyond what the schema examples already provide (e.g., field syntax). No extra credit is warranted.

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 a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('PTAB trial proceedings') and enumerates the proceeding types (IPR, PGR, CBM, and derivation). However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool uspto_ptab_proceeding_details, though the names and plural/singular distinction imply a search-list versus detail relationship.

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 signals that this is the tool for searching proceedings and lists the common search fields (trial number, patent owner, etc.). It does not mention when not to use it or point to alternatives such as uspto_ptab_proceeding_details for a specific proceeding, leaving usage context to implication.

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