get_patent_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get' plus the enumerated return fields imply a read-only lookup, and the field list gives a sense of what is returned, but there is no mention of error behavior, authentication, or whether a not-found case is handled. It is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the returned fields following. It is efficient, though enumerating return fields borders on redundant given an output schema exists.

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?

Because an output schema exists, the description needn't explain return values, and the required identifier is covered by the schema. The main gap is the absence of annotation coverage for the read-only/safety profile and of any usage routing, but the essentials for calling it correctly are present.

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 100% for the single parameter (application_number), so the schema already documents the input fully. The description adds no format, example, or syntactic detail about the application number beyond what the schema states, making the baseline of 3 appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific patent application'), making the retrieval-by-identifier intent clear. It implicitly contrasts with search_patents by specifying a single application, but never names the alternative explicitly, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is for fetching full details once a patent application number is known. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over search_patents, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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