search_by_classification

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions support for all classification levels and lists popular codes, but does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation, nor does it cover side effects, permissions, or output format. The behavioral transparency is partial but adequate.

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 well-structured: first sentence states purpose, second compares with sibling, third lists supported levels, then a helpful list of popular codes, and finally parameter descriptions. Every sentence earns its place, and it is front-loaded with essential information.

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?

The description covers input parameters in detail but lacks information about the output format, pagination, or any constraints like rate limits. Given no output schema, the absence of return value description makes it less complete for a 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 coverage is 0%, but the description compensates well. It explains ipc_code with examples and mentions popular codes, and explains limit with range and default. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's minimal type definitions.

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 states 'Sucht Patente nach IPC/CPC-Klassifikationscode,' clearly specifying the verb (search) and resource (patents by classification). It also distinguishes from the sibling tool search_by_cpc by noting it uses subgroup level for detailed searches, making the purpose specific and differentiated.

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 says 'Präzisere Suche als search_by_cpc — nutzt Subgroup-Ebene für detaillierte Technologie-Recherchen,' directly indicating when to use this tool over the sibling. It implies that for broader searches, search_by_cpc should be used, providing clear usage guidance.

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