check_patent_status

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait with 'Record facts only' (no legal interpretation or recommendation) and reveals the fields available for uncertainty handling via the 'unknown' status, but it says nothing about access requirements, rate limits, data freshness beyond 'as_of', or failure behavior for invalid IDs.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, leading with the core purpose before listing returned fields. The enumeration of return fields is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Return values are covered by the output schema and need not be restated, so the remaining burden is input format and routing guidance. It is adequate for a one-parameter read tool, but leaves the agent without patent_id format rules or comparison to sibling tools.

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% for the single required parameter, so the description must compensate. 'One US patent' narrows patent_id to a US patent identifier, but it does not specify whether that is a patent number, application number, with or without kind code or commas — format detail an agent must guess.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('one-call verdict for one US patent') and enumerates the exact status vocabulary (active, expired_term, expired_fee_nonpayment, withdrawn, unknown), which pins down what the tool actually returns. An agent can distinguish this consolidated status lookup from siblings like get_patent_brief or search_patents without opening any schema.

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 one-call verdict for one US patent' implies this is the single-patent status path rather than a search or brief tool, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use rule is given. Nothing tells the agent when to prefer get_patent_brief over this, or what to do if the patent ID is non-US.

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