get_claim_tree

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: the endpoint path signals a read-only GET, offsets are defined as text[start:end], the scope of 'flags' is bounded ('describe the text and the data only'), and version/as_of fields are called out. It omits error behavior and any rate/auth limits, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 core purpose is front-loaded, but it is a single dense sentence packed with comma-separated enumerations, including an awkward clause about 'the earlier mention each "the"/"said" phrase was matched to.' Each element is informative, yet the block is harder to scan than it needs to be.

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?

An output schema exists, so the long enumeration of return fields is arguably redundant, but the added semantics (offset convention, flag scope, version fields) go beyond it. What is missing for a one-parameter tool is only the patent_id format, which is a modest gap given the rest of the coverage.

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 parameter, so the description must compensate. 'One US patent' conveys that patent_id identifies a US patent, but the expected identifier format or example is never given, leaving a real gap for a caller formatting the argument.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'The claims of one US patent as a tree,' and then enumerates the exact per-claim fields returned (number, category, dependency, preamble, transition, elements, term mentions, references, flags). That makes it clearly distinct from siblings like get_patent_brief or search_patents, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of when a caller should pick this over get_patent_brief or search_patents, and no prerequisites. Only an implicit scoping constraint ('one US patent') tells the agent anything about appropriateness.

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