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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by noting that the tool 'runs multiple AI models in parallel' and returns 'ranked results with Hit Scores.' Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, and the description aligns with these without contradicting them.

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 composed of three concise sentences with no superfluous information. The primary purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, making it easy for an AI to quickly grasp the tool's function.

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 tool's complexity (4 parameters, 1 required, no output schema) and the annotations, the description provides sufficient context. It explains the return type ('ranked results with Hit Scores') and hints at the process, but does not detail the rating system or error cases. Still, it is adequately complete 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not significantly add meaning beyond the schema; it mentions 'SEP/FRAND analysis' for the mode parameter, which is a small addition. The description otherwise restates what is already in the parameter 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Search for'), resource ('products or technical standards'), and context ('infringe a given patent'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being the primary search tool for infringement analysis.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'when asked to find infringers, check infringement, or screen a patent.' While it does not exclude alternatives, the sibling tools serve different purposes (chart, credits, history, get result, rerun), so the context is clear without exclusions.

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