search_recent_patents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only describes what the tool does but not traits like rate limits, data freshness, or whether results are sorted by date. This lack of transparency makes it harder for an agent to anticipate 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 concise and well-structured, with a clear purpose statement followed by a bulleted parameter list. Every sentence is necessary and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

While parameter explanations are complete, the description lacks context on return format, sorting logic, and whether 'recent' means grant date or publication date. Given no output schema and no annotations, more contextual completeness would improve usability.

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 compensates by explaining each parameter: query with examples, days with time range and defaults, limit with min/max, and category with CPC examples. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 recent patents in a technology area, distinguishing it from general patent search tools. It mentions focusing on recently granted patents and optional category filter, but could be more precise about what 'recent' means (e.g., grant date vs. publication date).

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 indicates the tool is useful for finding current innovations and new developments, implying it should be used for time-sensitive searches. However, it does not explicitly specify when not to use it or compare it with siblings like search_patents or search_by_cpc, leaving room for ambiguity.

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