patentsview_get_attorney

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

Since there are no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the major behavioral detail that the underlying API has been discontinued, which is critical for an agent to know before invocation. It also implies that the tool may fail or be non-functional, which is essential behavioral context beyond any schema.

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 relatively concise and front-loaded with the purpose. The shutdown notice is important and appropriately placed. The use of whitespace slightly reduces density, but the content is efficient and each sentence earns its place, making it easy to parse critical information quickly.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it explains the input (attorney_id), the current operational status (shut down), and directs users to an alternative. No additional information about return values is needed due to the presence of an output schema. It fully equips an agent to use or avoid the tool correctly.

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?

The schema only defines 'attorney_id' as a string with no description. The description adds valuable context by explaining the parameter as 'Attorney ID from search results,' indicating the origin of the value. While it could be more detailed, it effectively compensates for the 0% schema coverage by providing a source reference.

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 immediately states 'Get detailed attorney information by ID,' which is a clear and specific declaration of the tool's purpose. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming 'attorney' and 'ID', and further differentiates by explicitly pointing to the legacy status and the recommended alternative, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 says the PatentsView API was shut down and instructs users to use 'odp_get_attorney' with a specific application number. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and names the alternative tool, fully covering usage decisions.

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