ppubs_get_full_document

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavior. It indicates a read-only 'get' operation and specifies that the output includes claims, description, drawings, and metadata, but does not explicitly mention side effects or error conditions. The read-only nature is implied by 'get', which is sufficient for most use cases.

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, using two short sentences that cover purpose, usage, and parameters without extraneous information. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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?

Given the simplicity of the operation (get by GUID), the description adequately sets expectations about the returned content (complete document with claims, description, drawings, metadata). It does not specify the exact format, but the mention of 'complete document' and its components provides sufficient context for an agent to decide if this tool fits the need.

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 description adds meaningful details for both parameters: guid is exemplified with a concrete format, and source_type is explained with possible values (USPAT, US-PGPUB). This goes beyond the bare schema, which only lists types, significantly aiding correct usage.

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 a complete patent document from PPUBS using a GUID, distinguishing it from search and download tools. The verb 'get' and resource 'patent document' are 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?

Explicitly instructs when to use the tool: when you have a document GUID from search results and need the full patent text including claims and description. This provides clear context and implicitly differentiates from alternative search or retrieval tools.

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