find_uspto_form

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states that it returns up to 5 best matches ranked by relevance and includes procedural gotchas. However, it does not mention how entity_status affects results or any edge-case behavior, but for a read-only mapping tool this is sufficient.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and includes examples and return behavior without unnecessary fluff. Every sentence adds value, making it appropriately concise.

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 description covers the tool's output (form number, name, URL, usage, gotchas) and use case, which is helpful given no output schema. The only notable gap is the unexplained 'entity_status' parameter, which prevents full completeness for an optional input that could affect results.

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 clarifies the 'purpose' parameter as the plain-language description of the inventor's intent. However, it gives no explanation for the 'entity_status' parameter, leaving its purpose ambiguous despite the enum in the schema. With 0% schema coverage, the description only partially compensates for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 maps a plain-language description to the correct USPTO form, with a specific verb ('Map') and resource (USPTO PTO/SB or PTO/AIA form). It lists the output fields and differentiates from sibling tools that handle status, 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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: when an inventor describes an intent but does not know the form number, and provides concrete examples. This makes the intended usage unambiguous and distinguishes it from alternatives.

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