search_by_cpc

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects. It does not specify that it is a read-only operation or what the response format looks like.

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 with a clear overview of CPC sections and parameter explanations. It is fairly concise but could be slightly tighter by removing redundant phrases like 'Nützlich für gezielte Technologie-Recherchen' which is implied.

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 complexity and numerous sibling tools, the description is moderately complete. It lacks output schema and behavioral details, and does not explain what the results contain or how they are formatted. However, it does cover the basic functionality and parameter usage.

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 description adds significant meaning beyond the schema: for cpc_code, it provides examples and relevant codes; for limit, it explains maximum results (1-50) and default value (10). Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description adequately compensates.

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 CPC classification code, provides an overview of CPC sections, and gives specific examples. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying the search method (by CPC) and explains the purpose for targeted technology searches.

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 explains what CPC is and when to use it (for targeted technology searches). While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar siblings like search_by_classification, it provides enough context for an agent to understand its specific use case.

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