patentsview_search_attorneys

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and discloses the critical limitation that the underlying API was shut down. It also documents partial-match behavior for name and limit bounds, though it does not explicitly state that calling this tool will fail or what error to expect.

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: one sentence stating the tool's purpose, a short IMPORTANT caveat with redirection, and a concise parameter list. Every part adds essential value.

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 two-parameter search tool with an output schema, the description covers the purpose, parameters, behavioral limitation, shutdown context, and preferred alternative. No significant information gap remains.

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%, but the description fully compensates by explaining that name supports partial matching and that limit has a default of 100 and maximum of 1000. These details go beyond the schema's bare type declarations.

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 performs a search for patent attorneys/agents, naming the resource and the action. It also proactively explains the upstream API shutdown, which makes its scope unambiguous despite the tool being effectively deprecated.

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 PatentsView API was shut down and instructs the agent to use odp_get_attorney with a specific application number instead. This provides clear when-not-to-use guidance and names the preferred alternative.

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