patent-gap

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses payment, x402 challenge, computed expiry, safety bands, supplier screening, and actionability ranking. Does not explicitly state read-only nature but implies no side effects beyond payment.

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?

Single paragraph of 4 sentences, front-loading the most critical info (PAID) and then describing purpose. No filler sentences; every sentence provides value.

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?

Given no output schema, description adequately explains what the report contains and the payment model. References sister tools for input. Could specify output format, but overall complete for a tool with 2 well-described parameters.

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% with parameter descriptions (limit and category). Description adds context about payment and report contents but does not significantly enhance parameter meaning beyond schema.

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 generates a 'full off-patent opportunity report' for a category slug, detailing included data (design patents, expiry, safety, supplier screen, ranked by actionability). Distinguishes from sibling tools: list_categories lists slugs, newly_expirable lists patents, screen_patent screens a single patent.

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?

Explicitly mentions it's a paid tool ($0.03 USDC via x402) and that free callers get a preview, guiding the agent on payment needs. References list_categories for obtaining the slug. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use but implies alternatives through sibling context.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavior. It implies a read operation with no side effects but lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or return format. Minimal transparency for a simple tool.

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 sentence and fairly concise, but the phrasing 'categories Patent-Gap tracks' is awkward and could be structured more clearly.

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?

Given no output schema, the description should have mentioned what the output looks like (e.g., a list of category names or IDs). The current text is adequate but leaves ambiguity about the return structure.

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?

There are no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter info, which is acceptable per guidelines (baseline 4 for zero parameters).

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 specifies a verb ('List') and a resource ('private-label product categories Patent-Gap tracks for expiring design patents'), but the phrasing is awkward and might confuse an AI agent. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on categories rather than reports or screening.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like category_opportunity_report, newly_expirable, or screen_patent. The description does not mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the feed is pre-screened (recall- and supplier-screened), sorted by soonest expiry first, and includes patents about to become free. It implies read-only behavior. Could explicitly state no side effects, but overall transparent.

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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It is fairly concise but could be slightly tighter by removing redundant explanations. Still well-structured.

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?

Given no output schema and one parameter with full coverage, the description adequately explains the feed's purpose, ordering, and filtering. However, it lacks details on the structure of returned items, which is a minor gap.

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?

Only one parameter 'limit' with schema coverage 100% (description in schema: 'Max items (default 30).'). The tool description does not add any additional meaning to this parameter beyond the schema. 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?

The description clearly states it is a cross-category feed of design patents that are newly expiring, with specific sorting and pre-screening. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying 'cross-category' and 'fresh off-patent private-label opportunities'.

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 implies when to use (finding private-label opportunities) but does not explicitly contrast with siblings or provide when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives mentioned.

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

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it computes expiry/status (not just a lookup), joins CPSC recall-safety, runs OFAC/OIG screens, and returns a freedom-to-operate read with explicit disclaimer 'not legal advice'. This is comprehensive.

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 sentences covering all key actions and output nature. No fluff, front-loaded with the core operation. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the complexity of multiple checks and no output schema, the description explains the return type (freedom-to-operate read) and includes a disclaimer. Could mention output format or limitations, but overall sufficient.

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% with descriptions for both parameters that are nearly identical to the tool description. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema, so 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 tool screens a single US patent by publication number, computes expiry/status, joins CPSC recall-safety, runs OFAC/OIG screen, and returns a freedom-to-operate read. It distinguishes from siblings like category_opportunity_report by focusing on a single patent, not categories.

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 implies use when you have a specific patent number and need a comprehensive screen. It does not explicitly state when not to use or alternate tools, but sibling names suggest alternatives for category-based analysis, so context is clear.

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