get_cpc_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses return behavior: 'Classification details including section, title, and description. For section codes (A-H, Y), returns subsection list.' It doesn't explicitly state this is read-only, but that is implied for a lookup. The behavior is transparent enough, though it could mention potential errors or rate limits.

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 well-structured and concise: a one-line summary, a 'USE THIS TOOL WHEN' section, and clearly labeled Args/Returns. Every sentence adds value, and it is front-loaded with purpose.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema exists), the description is complete. It explains both input and output, including the special case for section codes (A-H, Y). No missing guidance for a lookup tool of this nature.

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 fully does: 'Args: cpc_code: CPC code to look up (e.g., "G06" for computing, "G06N3/08" for neural networks)' provides meaning, format, and examples. This is highly informative beyond the bare schema.

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 verb and resource: 'Look up CPC (Cooperative Patent Classification) code information.' It also provides examples. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'patentsview_lookup_cpc', which likely serves a similar purpose, so it misses the sibling differentiation needed for a 5.

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?

Provides explicit use cases with 'USE THIS TOOL WHEN: You need to understand what technology area a CPC code represents, or find related classification codes.' This gives clear context for when to use it, but it lacks any mention of when not to use it or alternatives, so it does not meet the full criteria for a 5.

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