swiss_ip_get_patent

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, indicating safety and idempotency. The description adds behavioral details: it performs an exact lookup, returns a full dataset including IPC codes, applicant, inventor, and status. No contradictions 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 concise, using XML-like tags to structure key information (use_case, important_notes). It is front-loaded with the purpose and important note. However, the 'Args:' section repeats schema details, introducing minor redundancy. Overall efficient and well-structured.

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's simplicity (single parameter, exact lookup) and the presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description adequately covers the tool's behavior and return content. It includes constraining notes (exact match) and lists key return fields. No gaps for this complexity level.

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 description repeats parameter information already present in the schema (patent_number with example). It adds no significant new meaning beyond what the schema's description field provides. With schema description coverage at 0% (though the schema itself contains a description), the description offers marginal added value. A baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific Swiss patent by number ('Ruft ein bestimmtes Schweizer Patent anhand seiner Nummer ab'). The use_case tag reinforces this as a detail retrieval. It distinguishes itself from sibling search tools by emphasizing 'exakter Lookup; kein Fuzzy-Match', making it clear when to use this tool versus the search alternatives.

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 important_notes tag explicitly states 'Exakter Lookup; kein Fuzzy-Match', indicating this tool is for exact patent number lookups and not for fuzzy searches. While it doesn't name alternative tools, the sibling context provides search tools for broader queries. The guidance is clear but could be stronger by explicitly mentioning when to use search tools instead.

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