patentsview_get_claims

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

Without annotations, the description discloses the critical behavioral fact that the API was shut down, warning users of likely failure. It also implies a read-only operation by the verb 'get' without side effects, though it lacks explicit rate limits or auth requirements, which are less critical here.

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 concise with front-loaded purpose, a brief but critical deprecation notice, and a minimal parameter explanation. Every sentence earns its place with no 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 tool's simplicity and existing output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, why it may not be usable, and what to use instead. The deprecation warning is vital for correct agent decision-making.

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 zero schema description coverage, the description provides an Args section with a clear explanation and example (patent_id: Patent ID/number, e.g., '7861317'). This adds essential meaning beyond the bare schema type.

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 all claims text for a patent' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like patentsview_get_patent (metadata) and ppubs_get_full_document (full text) by focusing solely on claims text.

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 API is shut down and instructs users to use ppubs_get_full_document instead. This provides clear when-to-use/alternative guidance, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's current status.

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