ptab_get_proceeding

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

With no annotations, the description carries some burden and does add context: it says the tool is 'Live via USPTO ODP v3.0' and lists return contents. However, it does not disclose read-only behavior explicitly, error handling for invalid or missing proceedings, rate limits, or any side effects.

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 with its purpose, followed by a brief Args/Returns structure. The Args section partially duplicates the schema, but it earns its place by adding the example. No filler or redundant explanation is present.

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 single-parameter getter with an output schema, the description is mostly adequate and gives the essential identifier and return scope. However, it omits error behavior, explicit read-only confirmation, and any relationship guidance to sibling PTAB tools, leaving moderate context gaps.

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 only parameter, proceeding_number, has zero schema description coverage, but the description adds a concrete example ('IPR2023-00001') and explains it is a proceeding number. This meaningfully compensates for the schema's lack of detail, though it does not enumerate all possible proceeding formats.

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 opens with 'Get details of a specific PTAB proceeding', clearly identifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes this from sibling search and document/decision/appeal tools by targeting the proceeding itself and listing key returned content: parties, patent, status, and dates.

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 phrase 'specific PTAB proceeding' implies use when a known proceeding number is available, contrasting with search tools. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over related tools like ptab_get_decision or ptab_get_documents, and no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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