check_ids_requirement

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full transparency burden. It thoroughly explains what the tool determines (filing windows, forms, fees, certifications) and adds regulatory context (duty of disclosure under 37 CFR 1.56). It doesn't explicitly state it's read-only, but the analysis-oriented language implies no mutation.

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 two sentences with substantive content, no filler. The first sentence densely packs the tool's core capabilities, and the second provides motivational context. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, though the first sentence is long.

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?

Despite having no output schema and six parameters, the description covers the tool's decision logic, usage context, and relevant legal references comprehensively. It explains what the tool determines and when to use it, but doesn't describe the return format or edge cases, which is a minor gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the conceptual stages (before first OA, final/allowance) and references conditions like RCE and prior art, which relate to parameters like `last_office_action_type` and `has_rce_been_filed`. However, it doesn't map each parameter or explain ambiguous ones like `references_first_known_date`.

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 determines IDS requirements, filing window, form selection, and fee/certification needs. It uses specific terminology (Information Disclosure Statement, SB/08A, SB/08B, 37 CFR 1.97(e)) and distinctly differentiates from sibling tools focused on forms, fees, and deadlines.

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 explicitly says 'Use this tool whenever an inventor learns of new prior art or asks about IDS.' It provides clear context for when to invoke it, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives or mention when not to use it.

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