googlepatents_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it explains that the tool returns a page of normalized hits and aggregate breakdowns over the full result set, and it makes clear the data is public and sourced from Google Patents' own search API. It does not mention rate limits or edge cases, but core behavioral expectations are stated.

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 compact and front-loaded with 'Search Google Patents' before providing details on scope and return values. Though the first and second sentences somewhat duplicate the list of filters, the text is tight, readable, and avoids unnecessary fluff.

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 13 parameters and no output schema, the description still manages to explain the return shape ('a page of normalized hits' plus breakdowns) and the data source, giving an agent a solid mental model. It could clarify what 'normalized hits' means or how breakdowns are computed over the full result, but it is complete enough for a search tool with a thoroughly documented 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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents every parameter with useful context. The description only lists high-level filter types, which adds no meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for full schema coverage but does not go further.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Search Google Patents') and specifies the full-index free-text scope with filters. The mention of 'full index', 'free-text query', and result breakdowns distinguishes it from sibling tools such as googlepatents_detail, googlepatents_recent, and googlepatents_classification.

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 implies a general search use case but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as googlepatents_recent, googlepatents_detail, googlepatents_coverage, or googlepatents_suggest. It also does not state when not to use it or how it complements the other Google Patents tools.

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