get_patent_litigation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose a key behavioral constraint: the underlying API is unavailable on the Open Data Portal. However, it omits information about error behavior, authentication, or what happens when the tool is called.

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 brief and front-loads the important availability warning. The Args block is largely redundant with the schema, but it is not wordy and the overall structure is clear.

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?

For a one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description gives essential context by flagging the unavailable API and pointing to search_litigation. It leaves some ambiguity about what actually happens when this tool is called, but the warning is enough to guide an agent to the preferred alternative.

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 should compensate. Instead, 'patent_number: Patent number' merely restates the schema's title and adds no format, example, validation, or canonical identifier guidance.

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?

Description states 'Get all litigation involving a specific patent' with a specific verb and resource, and clearly scopes the litigation to a patent. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_litigation_case and get_party_litigation.

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 description explicitly warns that the USPTO Patent Litigation API is not available and directs users to search_litigation for details and workarounds. This provides a clear alternative/avoidance signal, though it stops short of fully explaining when this tool should be used.

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