track_provisional_deadlines

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It goes beyond the basic intent by disclosing that 37 CFR 1.7(a) weekend/federal-holiday rollover is applied automatically, and it clarifies that the month-10 target is a best practice rather than statutory—crucial context for user expectations. This level of behavioral detail exceeds what most tool descriptions provide.

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 relatively long but organized as a clear list of computed dates, with statutory references. Every sentence contributes necessary information (e.g., rollover rule, best-practice clarification). It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and use case, making it easy to parse despite its length.

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 legal complexity and the absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the what, why, and when. It explains the statutory bases, distinguishes non-statutory deadlines, and mentions the automatic rollover. It does not describe the return format or error handling, but these are secondary given the detailed scope and usage guidance.

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 for parameter meaning. It clearly implies the required provisional_filing_date ('Given a provisional patent application's filing date') and hints at jurisdiction_priorities via 'if foreign filings are planned' for the PCT deadline. However, it does not specify the expected date format or the exact values/meaning of the jurisdiction_priorities array strings, leaving significant room for ambiguity.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('compute every date the inventor needs to track' from a provisional filing date) and enumerates the exact outputs (nonprovisional deadline, month-10 target, 102(b)(1) grace period, PCT deadline). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like calculate_response_deadline by focusing on provisional-specific statutory 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 'Use when an inventor mentions a provisional filing date or asks "when is my nonprovisional due"', giving clear context for when to invoke. It does not name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use exclusions, so it falls short of a 5 but is well beyond vague or absent guidance.

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