analyze_technology_trends

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

Given no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'uses parallel API queries for fast results' (performance trait) and describes outputs. However, it does not disclose potential limits (e.g., rate limiting) or any side effects. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Description is concise, with a clear purpose sentence followed by output details and argument list. It is front-loaded and every sentence adds value. Slightly longer than necessary but still efficient.

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 no output schema and two parameters, the description sufficiently explains inputs and outputs. It mentions what the tool returns, which is enough for an agent to understand its use. No major gaps.

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?

The schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description adds essential context: query is a technology search term with examples, years has a range (1-20) and default (5). This compensates well for the missing schema descriptions.

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 it analyzes patent application trends for a technology, listing specific outputs (number per year, growth rate, top applicants). It distinguishes from sibling tools like analyze_patent_landscape (broader landscape) and get_top_patent_holders (just top holders).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. While the purpose is clear, it does not mention when to prefer it over analyze_patent_landscape or search_patents, leaving the agent without comparative context.

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