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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine provenance context ('Every number in the result was returned by USPTO or EPO') and a legal disclaimer, but says nothing about result limits (schema caps at 25) or how multiple filters combine.

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?

Three short sentences, zero waste, with the scope of the search front-loaded before the provenance and disclaimer clauses. Each 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?

With 8 optional parameters, no required params, no output schema, and no sibling differentiation, the description leaves real gaps: whether filters are ANDed, how many results come back by default, and how this differs from search_prior_art. The provenance note partially compensates but the tool's behavior on multi-filter queries is unstated.

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% and the schema already documents formats (CPC symbol, YYYY-MM-DD, EPO vs USPTO claim matching). The description only restates the facet names, adding no syntax or semantics 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?

States a specific verb ('Search') plus resource ('public patent records') and enumerates the facets that can be searched, matching the schema's parameters. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling search_prior_art, which covers very similar ground.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus find_patent_citations, get_patent, or especially search_prior_art, nor any prerequisite or exclusion guidance. The agent must infer usage purely from the facet list.

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