patent_get

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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only and open-world; the description adds useful behavioral details: it enumerates available sections, notes that US fulltext comes via USPTO Public Search while EP/WO uses EPO OPS, and specifies that citations include backward and forward directions. This goes beyond the schema without contradicting the read-only and open-world hints.

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 a single information-dense sentence that front-loads the primary action and identifier format, then efficiently lists section semantics. There is no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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 read-only detail lookup with three simple parameters, the description covers the essential input format, available sections, and source caveats. The schema handles defaults and limits, so nothing an agent needs to call the tool correctly is missing.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds value by giving realistic patent_id examples and clarifying the content and source of each section. For instance, the claim-source caveat and citation directionality are not in the schema descriptions.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get patent details by publication number,' and includes concrete accepted formats for the identifier. The listed sections (abstract, claims, citations, family, classifications) make it unmistakable that this is a fetch-by-ID tool rather than a search tool like patent_search.

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 'by publication number' sets a clear prerequisite: use this tool when you already have a patent publication number and need its details. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as patent_search for query-based lookup, but the usage context is clear and no exclusions are stated.

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