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 already declare openWorldHint (results may change) and non-read-only, but description adds valuable context: it re-runs a previous search (not a new one), gets fresh results, and is free within 6 months. No contradiction with annotations.
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, zero waste. Every word adds value: action, context, cost condition, use case.
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?
Lacks output schema and does not describe what the response contains (e.g., status, results format). Users need to know what to expect. Also no comparison with sibling tools despite having them.
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 'search_id' with schema description matching the tool's purpose. Schema coverage is 100%, so description adds no extra meaning. Baseline 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 verb 're-run' and resource 'patent search', with the outcome 'get fresh results'. It distinguishes from siblings like claimhit_search (initial search) and claimhit_get_result (single result) by focusing on re-running an existing 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?
Explicitly states when to use: refresh results or check for new infringers. Mentions cost condition 'free within 6 months'. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use comparison with alternatives, but context is clear enough.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: search, re-run search, generate chart, get credits, get history, get specific result. No overlap in functionality.
All tools share the 'claimhit_' prefix and use imperative verbs. Most follow verb_noun pattern, though 'claimhit_search' lacks a noun, creating minor inconsistency.
With 6 tools, the set is well-scoped for a patent infringement analysis service, covering search, re-run, detailed charting, result retrieval, history, and credits.
The tool surface covers the full workflow: searching, viewing results, generating charts, re-running searches, and checking credits/history. No obvious gaps for the stated purpose.