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

Annotations already disclose read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat them. It adds useful context about searching granted patents and matching against title/abstract, but it does not disclose behaviors like result ordering, pagination behavior, or open-world variability beyond the annotation hints.

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 three short sentences with no filler or repetition. The core action and scope are front-loaded, the required input condition is stated clearly, and the output summary is included compactly.

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 compensates by listing the returned fields (title, grant date, assignee, inventors). It also covers the necessary input rule and relies on schema descriptions for parameter formatting and limit behavior, which is sufficient for a read-only search 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?

Schema descriptions cover 100% of the parameters, including field meanings and formats. The description mostly restates what the schema already says (e.g., query matches title/abstract), adding only the at-least-one combination constraint, which is more of a usage guideline than parameter semantics. This matches the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 specifies the search dimensions (keyword, title, grant date range) and returned fields. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like patent_details, patent_assignee_search, and patent_inventor_search, which target different access patterns.

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 the required input condition: 'Provide at least one of query, title, start_date, end_date.' This is a clear usage rule. It does not explicitly name alternative patent tools or exclusions, but the requirement and search scope imply when this tool is appropriate.

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