patentsview_get_inventor

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the critical behavioral fact that the underlying API is no longer available, and clearly warns that disambiguated inventor lookups have no direct replacement. It does not explicitly say calls will fail, but the shutdown notice strongly implies non-functionality.

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 front-loaded, leading with the core purpose and placing the shutdown warning prominently. The Args section is cleanly separated, and every sentence contributes essential information without fluff.

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 simple one-parameter lookup tool with an output schema, the description provides the necessary operational context: what the tool does, that it is defunct, and what alternative path to pursue. The output schema covers return-value details, so the description does not need to restate them.

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 must compensate. The Args section clarifies that inventor_id is the 'Disambiguated inventor ID from search results,' adding provenance and definition beyond the schema's bare property name. A concrete format or example would improve it, but for a single-parameter tool this is sufficient.

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 the tool's action ('Get detailed inventor information') and its key identifier ('by disambiguated ID'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like patentsview_get_patent and patentsview_get_assignee. The verb-resource pair is specific and immediately understandable.

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 discloses that the PatentsView API was shut down and that no direct replacement exists, then names an alternative tool (odp_search_datasets) for bulk data. It also implies the tool is meant to be used after obtaining an inventor ID from search results, providing strong usage context.

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