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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds useful behavioral context by enumerating the returned fields (title, grant date, assignee, inventors), which matters because no output schema exists. It says nothing about result caps beyond the schema's limit, but that is minor.

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 tight sentences with zero waste: the search scope and matched fields come first, then the minimum-input rule, then the return shape. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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 no output schema, the description correctly compensates by listing the returned fields, and it states the minimum-input requirement. It omits details like default row count or result ordering, though the schema's limit parameter covers the most important sizing concern.

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 query/title/date semantics are already documented in the schema, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds the cross-parameter constraint that at least one of four fields must be supplied — something the schema cannot express given zero required parameters — but otherwise restates 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 names a specific verb and resource ('Search granted US patents') and scopes the match fields (keyword against title and abstract, title, grant date range). This implicitly separates it from siblings like patent_assignee_search and patent_inventor_search, but it never names those alternatives explicitly, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

It gives a concrete usage constraint — 'Provide at least one of query, title, start_date, end_date' — which tells the agent the minimum viable call. It does not, however, state when to prefer this tool over patent_assignee_search, patent_inventor_search, or patent_recent, so no exclusion guidance is present.

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