search_by_inventor

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

No annotations provided, so the description bears full burden. It mentions supporting full or last name but omits behavioral traits like what happens on no results, error handling, or rate limits. Lacks side-effect disclosure.

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?

Extremely concise: two short introductory lines then an args list. Every sentence adds value, no fluff. Well-organized with clear separation between general behavior and parameter details.

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?

For a simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description fully covers input semantics and basic behavior. Could optionally mention output format but is otherwise sufficient.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully adds meaning: examples ('Elon Musk' vs 'Musk'), meaning (inventor name), and range (limit 1-50, default 10). This goes well beyond the schema's bare types.

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 for patents by a specific inventor, using 'Sucht Patente eines bestimmten Erfinders.' It also specifies support for full name or last name, which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_by_assignee.

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 (e.g., search_patents). The description implies use when searching by inventor name but does not provide when-not-to-use or mention other search options.

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