patentsview_get_description

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It makes the essential runtime fact explicit: the underlying API is deprecated and unavailable, so the tool likely will not work. While it doesn't describe error formats or output details, the deprecation notice is the most critical behavioral trait and is clearly disclosed.

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose, includes a clearly highlighted IMPORTANT deprecation note, and ends with an Args section for the parameter. Every sentence adds value with no unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Despite only having one parameter and an output schema already present, the description is complete for decision-making: it explains what the tool would retrieve, why it shouldn't be used now, and which sibling tool will achieve the intended outcome. This makes the disambiguation fully informational.

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 gives only the parameter name 'patent_id' with no description, while the description adds a semantic definition: 'Patent ID/number' with a concrete example. Since this is the single required parameter, this fully bridges the schema's coverage gap.

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 that the tool retrieves patent detailed description/specification text, distinguishing it from sibling tools like patentsview_get_patent and patentsview_get_claims. The verb 'Get' plus resource 'patent detailed description/specification text' is specific and 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 warns that the PatentsView API was shut down on March 20, 2026, and directs the agent to use ppubs_get_full_document instead. This gives a clear 'when not to use' condition and names an exact alternative, making the guidance excellent.

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