Fiche complète d'un brevet

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the official INPI source and the fields included, but it does not describe behavior for missing patents, response format, rate limits, or auth requirements.

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 front-loaded sentence that immediately identifies the tool and then lists the returned fields. The field list is long but useful given the absence of an output schema, and there is no redundant filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately enumerates the kinds of data returned by the patent record, covering title, dates, parties, classifications, and events. It is largely complete for a read-only lookup tool, though it omits usage routing and edge-case behavior.

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%, and the single 'numero' parameter is fully documented in the schema with examples. The description does not add any further meaning about the parameter format or validation beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a clear resource ('Fiche d'un brevet') and enumerates the patent data it returns, so the agent can tell it retrieves a detailed patent record. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 'rechercher_brevets', which keeps it from a 5.

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 the tool is for obtaining a full patent record from an INPI notice, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or comparison with alternatives such as 'rechercher_brevets'. The agent must infer the routing decision.

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