patentsview_get_patent

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a critical behavioral fact—the API is shut down—which is crucial for agents to know. However, it does not describe what happens if called (likely error) or any other operational details, but the shutdown disclosure is the most important transparency.

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 and front-loaded, stating the purpose, then the critical deprecation warning in bold, and finally the parameter description. Every sentence earns its place without 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?

Although the tool is deprecated, the description completely covers the essential context: it tells the agent the tool is non-functional and points to the correct alternative. An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. For its complexity (simple tool with one param), the description is sufficient.

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?

With one parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by providing the parameter name and an example: 'patent_id: Patent ID/number (e.g., 7861317).' This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema definition, though it could be slightly more detailed about format or validation.

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 purpose: 'Get detailed patent information from PatentsView.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming the alternative tool (ppubs_get_patent_by_number) to use instead, given the API shutdown.

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 provides explicit when-not-to-use guidance: 'IMPORTANT: The PatentsView API (search.patentsview.org) was shut down on March 20, 2026. Use ppubs_get_patent_by_number for patent details.' This names the alternative and clearly states the tool is not to be used.

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