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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false), which is unusual for a search tool. The description adds no behavioral context at all: no mention of the 5-minute caching that no_cache controls, no rate/statistics implications, and no note on what a query returns. For a 19-parameter tool this is a thin disclosure.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficiently sized, though the brevity borders on under-specification for a tool of this complexity.

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 19 parameters, no output schema, and a mutation-flagged annotation set, the description is far too sparse. It says nothing about pagination behavior, caching semantics, or result shape, leaving the agent to reconstruct the calling contract entirely from the schema.

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% with 19 fully documented parameters, including formats for after/before, dups, json, and enumerated type values. The description contributes no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the 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?

The description names a specific verb (查询/query) and resource (Google Patents 专利) and enumerates the data types returned (标题、发明人、申请人、专利号、专利文献数据). This clearly identifies the tool's domain. It stops short of differentiating from the sibling google_scholar, which is relevant since the tool itself can surface Scholar results via the scholar param.

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 phrasing '当用户需要...时触发' functions as an implied trigger condition, which gives some when-to-use signal. However, it offers no exclusions, no prerequisites, and no routing advice versus alternatives like google_scholar or google_search, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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