compare_portfolios

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

No annotations provided, so the description bears full weight. It discloses the output includes total number, growth trend, and newest patents, but does not mention read-only nature, data source, rate limits, or any side effects. The behavioral traits beyond purpose are minimal.

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 brief, front-loaded with the main purpose, and structured with a clear list of parameters. Every sentence serves a purpose, and there is no unnecessary verbosity. The 'Args' section is slightly redundant but acceptable.

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, the description mentions what the tool shows (total, trend, newest patents), which provides a basic idea of the output. However, it does not specify the data format or details like ordering. For a simple comparison tool with 3 parameters, this is largely sufficient but could be more explicit.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description adds meaning. It provides examples for company_a and company_b (e.g., 'Apple'), and specifies the range and default for years (1-10, default 5). This compensates for the schema's lack of 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 compares patent portfolios of two companies and lists what it shows (total count, growth trend, newest patents). The verb 'vergleicht' and resource 'Patent-Portfolios' are specific. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'analyze_patent_landscape' which are broader.

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 alternatives. The purpose implies it's for pairwise comparisons, but no statements about when not to use it or alternatives. The context from sibling tools somewhat differentiates, but the description itself lacks usage guidelines.

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