search_patents

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It accurately discloses the main behavior: searching and returning bibliographic info and excerpts. It does not mention potential side effects like rate limits or default provider behavior, but the core behavior is clear and not misleading.

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 two short paragraphs. The first sentence states the function; the subsequent sentences give usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place, and the layout is front-loaded.

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 rich set of 12 parameters (all documented in the schema) and the presence of an output schema, the description is sufficient. It explains the core purpose and directs to the appropriate sibling for full-text needs, though it could briefly mention filtering capabilities.

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 adds a usage context note but does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter.

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 searches patents by keyword and returns bibliographic information and excerpts. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying this is keyword-based search, and explicitly mentions get_patent for full claims/specifications.

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 provides explicit usage context (finding prior art lead based on technical themes or applicants) and an explicit alternative (get_patent when full claims/specifications are needed). It does not mention find_similar_patents as an alternative, which slightly reduces completeness.

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