Get Patent Global Document

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already tells the agent this is a safe read, and the description adds nothing beyond that: no error behavior for unknown IDs, no indication of whether the document body or only metadata is returned, and no rate/format notes. It neither contradicts nor enriches the annotation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than tight editing.

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 two-required-parameter fetch tool with no output schema and only a readOnly annotation, the description leaves too much unstated: what a 'global document' contains, why applicationNumber is required, and how it differs from the other patent document tools. The structured fields do not compensate for these 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters are documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description mentions only the document ID ('by document ID') and omits the equally required applicationNumber, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema and mildly under-represents the inputs.

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?

States a specific verb (Fetch), resource (patent global document), and cardinality (one), which contrasts implicitly with the list sibling get_patent_global_doc_list. However, it never explains what 'global' means relative to get_patent_documents or get_patent_jp_document, so the agent cannot confidently distinguish it from those siblings.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no preconditions, and names no alternatives. With many patent document siblings (get_patent_documents, get_patent_jp_document, get_patent_global_doc_list), this omission leaves routing entirely to inference.

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