patentsview_lookup_cpc

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It reveals the critical operational fact that the tool is non-functional due to API shutdown and points to an alternative. This exceeds the minimum requirement and prevents runtime failures, though it does not detail other behaviors like read-only status, which are irrelevant given the deprecation.

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 succinct, with a clear warning first and a concise parameter explanation. Every sentence earns its place, providing critical information without fluff. It is well-structured and immediately actionable.

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 having an output schema (not shown), the description covers essential context: the tool's deprecation and the recommended alternative. It is complete for a deprecated look-up tool, as the shutdown notice is the most critical context an agent needs. The single parameter is well documented, and the output schema presumably handles return value details.

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. It explains the cpc_code parameter with format and examples ('class "G06" or group "G06N3/08"'), adding semantic meaning beyond the bare schema definition of a string. This is excellent for a single-parameter tool.

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 'looks up CPC classification code details', specifying the resource and action. It further distinguishes from sibling tool get_cpc_info by explicitly naming it as the alternative for CPC descriptions. Although it notes the API shutdown, the purpose remains 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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: it declares the PatentsView API shut down and instructs to use get_cpc_info instead. This is a clear directive that prevents misuse and directs the agent to the correct sibling tool.

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