Get Patent Japan Document

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, and the description only confirms that with 'Fetch'. It adds no behavioral context such as authentication scope, whether the document body or metadata is returned, or any rate/size limits, so it does little beyond 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 arguably too terse for a tool with two required parameters, but there is no wasted language.

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 annotated read with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is close to sufficient, but it omits the required applicationNumber parameter entirely and gives no hint of what 'document' means in the response. An agent could attempt a call missing a required argument.

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%, so the schema already documents both documentId and applicationNumber (with format example 'JP.12345678.A'). The description only names the document ID and adds no syntax or format meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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') and resource ('patent Japan document') scoped by document ID, which is clearer than a bare 'get document'. However, it does not distinguish this tool from close siblings like get_patent_documents (plural) or get_patent_global_document, so an agent still has to infer which one applies.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as get_patent_documents for listing or get_patent_global_document for non-JP records. The single word 'one' hints at a single-record fetch but that is implicit, not stated.

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