claimhit_rerun_searchRe-run a previous patent search to get fresh results. Free within 6 months of the original search. Use when the user wants to refresh results or check if new infringers have appeared.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| search_id | Yes | The search ID of the previous search to re-run |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations include readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by specifying the free-within-6-months business rule, which is not captured in the structured fields. It could further disclose whether the re-run returns results directly or requires a subsequent fetch via claimhit_get_result, but the added cost context justifies a 4.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. There is no redundancy or filler.
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?
No output schema is present, so the description should clarify what the tool returns. 'Get fresh results' is vague—it doesn't explain whether the tool returns results immediately, returns a new search ID for later retrieval via claimhit_get_result, or something else. The tool is simple (1 parameter) but this missing return behavior keeps it from being complete; score 3 reflects the minimal viable level.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter, search_id, which is already described as 'The search ID of the previous search to re-run.' The tool description does not add further semantic nuance beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is 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 clearly states the action: 'Re-run a previous patent search to get fresh results.' It specifies the resource (patent search) and the verb (re-run), and distinguishes this from the sibling search tool by focusing on re-running an existing search rather than performing a new one.
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 explicit usage context: 'Use when the user wants to refresh results or check if new infringers have appeared.' It also notes the free-within-6-months condition, which helps decide when to use this tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or explicitly reference alternatives like claimhit_search.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Tools are mostly distinct: search, rerun, get_result, and get_history all deal with searches but have clear purposes. The slight overlap between get_result and get_history (both return past search data) could cause minor confusion, but descriptions clarify the difference.
All tools share the claimhit_ prefix, and most follow a verb_noun pattern (get_credits, get_history, generate_chart, rerun_search). The bare 'claimhit_search' deviates from the verb_noun pattern, but overall naming is predictable and readable.
With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for patent infringement analysis. Each tool serves a clear function in the workflow: search, refine, retrieve, chart, and manage account.
The core lifecycle is covered: search, rerun, retrieve results, and generate charts. A minor gap is the lack of a dedicated tool to list or retrieve previously generated charts, but the existing tools allow agents to work around this.