get_patent_claims

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

Describes the action as a fetch, which implies read-only, but no annotations are provided. Does not disclose error handling, rate limits, or what happens if the patent does not exist.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by a clarifying statement. No unnecessary words.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. Could mention that the output is the text of the claims, but it is implied.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description restates the parameter usage. The additional sentence about legal scope provides context for the output but not for the parameter itself.

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?

Clearly states it fetches the full claims text of a US patent by publication number, with an explanation of what claims are. This differentiates from sibling tools get_patent (likely full patent) and search_patents (searching).

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?

Implicitly conveys usage via context (claims vs patent details vs search) but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternative tool names mentioned.

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