search_patents

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that only US patents are supported (via PatentsView) and that the country parameter is limited. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only or discuss rate limits, pagination, or error behavior.

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 relatively concise with a short intro and a clear Arg list. However, it mixes German and English, which slightly reduces clarity. The structure is functional but could be more streamlined.

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 should explain return values or results format, which it does not. It covers input well but lacks completeness for a full understanding of the tool's behavior and output.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the parameter descriptions in the text add crucial details: query examples, country limitation, limit range, and date format. This fully 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 that the tool searches patents by keywords in title and abstract, specifically for US patents. This distinguishes it from other search tools that focus on assignees or classifications, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like 'search_recent_patents'.

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 mention of optional date filters hints at use cases for time-range searches, but there is no discussion of when not to use it or which sibling tools are better suited for other scenarios.

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