googlepatents_recent

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the data source ('Google Patents' own sitemap'), public data nature, one-week scope, and return payload fields (publication number, title, detail-page URL). However, it omits behavior such as result count, ordering, pagination, empty-week handling, and latency — acceptable for a simple browse tool, but not fully transparent.

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?

Three short, information-dense sentences with the core function front-loaded, followed by the return payload and a quick usage context. No filler or tautological repetition.

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 single-parameter browse tool returning a simple list, the description covers what the tool does, what the parameter means, where the data comes from, and what the response contains. It lacks details like ordering or limits, but these are minor for a simple browse/resource tool with no output schema.

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 100%, and the schema already defines 'week' as 'ISO 8601 week, format YYYY-Www.' The description restates this format, adds a concrete example ('2026-W20'), and clarifies that the week maps to a sitemap index. This adds marginal value, but the schema already carries the essential meaning.

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?

Description states a specific verb and resource: 'Browse patent publications indexed by Google Patents for one ISO week.' It also implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling search tools by noting it is for browsing 'without a search query,' which isolates it from googlepatents_search and similar query-based tools.

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 gives a clear use case: 'useful for browsing recently published patents without a search query.' This tells an agent when to prefer this tool, and the reference to lacking a search query implies the alternative is a search-based tool, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools or describe when not to use it.

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