patentsview_get_assignee

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the critical fact that the underlying API was shut down, which is a major behavioral trait. However, it doesn't describe what happens if called (e.g., error or stale data), but the warning is sufficient for most purposes.

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 compact and well-structured: a clear purpose line, an important note in caps, and an Args section. Every sentence earns its place; no fluff or redundancy.

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 output schema exists (so return values are documented), the description covers purpose, the shutdown caveat, and parameter origin. For a tool that's essentially deprecated, it provides sufficient context to prevent misuse.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning: 'Disambiguated assignee ID from search results.' This tells the agent where to obtain the ID and it's disambiguated, providing valuable context 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 'Get detailed assignee information by disambiguated ID.' This specifies the verb (get), resource (assignee), and method (by disambiguated ID), distinguishing it from search tools like patentsview_search_assignees and peer get_inventor.

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?

Explicitly warns that the PatentsView API is shut down and no direct replacement exists, instructing to use odp_search_datasets instead. This gives clear when-not-to-use guidance and names a concrete alternative, exceeding typical usage guidance.

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