patent-gap

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the paid nature (cost, blockchain), the ranked output, and the components (expiry, recalls, supplier screen). It also explains the free preview behavior. This is fairly transparent for a complex report 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 concise, fitting essential information into two sentences. The first sentence packs the payment detail, purpose, and contents. The second covers the free caller case. No superfluous words.

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 tool with 2 well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the report's components and payment model. It might lack detail on the output format or error conditions, but given the simplicity, it is sufficiently complete.

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%. The description adds the hint to use list_categories for the category parameter, but otherwise the schema already describes both parameters adequately. The description does not provide additional semantic value beyond the 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?

The description clearly states it produces a full off-patent opportunity report for a category slug, listing specific contents (design patents, expiry, safety screens, rankings). This is distinct from siblings like list_categories (just lists slugs) and newly_expirable (likely different focus).

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 indicates payment requirement and mentions free callers get a preview, which implicitly tells when to use the paid version. It references list_categories for obtaining the slug, providing a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly compare to siblings or state when not to use this tool.

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 provided, so description carries full burden. It indicates a read operation but lacks details about potential rate limits, idempotency, or what happens on empty results. Straightforward but insufficient behavioral disclosure.

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 sentence, concise and front-loaded. Every word serves a purpose, no redundancy or unnecessary fluff.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not specify what the output contains (e.g., names, IDs, counts), which would improve completeness for a simple list tool.

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?

No parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. Description adds valuable context by specifying 'private-label product categories Patent-Gap tracks for expiring design patents,' which clarifies the scope beyond the empty schema. Baseline 4 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?

Description clearly states verb 'list' and resource 'categories' with specific context about private-label product categories related to expiring design patents. Distinguishes from siblings like 'category_opportunity_report' and 'newly_expirable' by focusing on listing categories rather than reports or expirable items.

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 explicit guidance on when or when not to use this tool. Does not mention alternatives or context for selection among siblings. Usage is only implied by the description.

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 full burden. It discloses ordering and pre-screening but omits other behavioral details such as pagination behavior, data freshness, or update frequency. It adequately alerts that results are for design patents only.

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, well-crafted sentence that places the most critical information upfront ('Cross-category feed of design patents that just became free to make'). Every clause adds value, with no redundancy or clutter.

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 feed tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what the feed contains, its ordering, and its screening. It could be improved by noting the return format or field names, but overall it is fairly complete.

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% for the single parameter 'limit', which has a clear description. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score 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 specifies a resource (design patents), an action (feeds becoming free to make), and ordering (soonest-first). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'category_opportunity_report' by being cross-category and pre-screened.

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 usage for obtaining expiring patents but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. Sibling tools are listed but not compared.

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 exist, so description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses three operations and the outcome (freedom-to-operate read) plus a disclaimer. Missing details on whether the tool is read-only or has 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 efficient sentence covering purpose, inputs, actions, and output. Slightly dense but clear; could be broken into two sentences for readability.

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 complexity (three checks) and no output schema, description explains return value (freedom-to-operate read) and includes a disclaimer. Does not describe output format or structure, which might be needed for an agent.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context by providing an example (USD689332S1) and noting category sharpens recall match, but it largely mirrors schema text. No additional meaning beyond that.

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 explicitly states the tool screens one US patent by publication number and lists three specific computational actions (expiry/status, CPSC recall-safety, OFAC/OIG screen). It clearly distinguishes from siblings by focusing on a single patent rather than categories or lists.

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 usage for individual patent screening but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool references. Sibling names provide differentiation, but no direct guidance is given.

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