googlepatents_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the data is 'Public data, sourced from Google Patents' own search API,' which sets expectations about authenticity and access. It also states the return format: 'a page of normalized hits plus top-assignee/top-inventor/top-classification breakdowns over the full result set.' This goes beyond just the action and provides useful behavioral context, though it doesn't mention pagination mechanics or potential errors.

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 three sentences with no wasted words. The primary action is front-loaded, followed by the scope and return details. Every sentence provides new information: what it does, what filters are available, and what it returns. It is well-structured and efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and behavior.

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 the complexity (13 parameters) and absence of an output schema, the description reasonably covers the essential return structure ('page of normalized hits plus breakdowns') and the data source. It doesn't explain pagination or date_field semantics in detail, but the schema covers those. For a search tool with these parameters, the description is fairly complete, though it could specify the hit format more explicitly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'optional inventor, assignee, patent office, status, type, language, and date filters,' which lists parameters but adds little beyond what the schema already documents. It doesn't explain parameter interactions or formats beyond the schema's own descriptions, so it meets the baseline but doesn't enhance understanding.

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's purpose: 'Search Google Patents by keyword, inventor, assignee, and other filters.' It specifies the resource (Google Patents), the action (search), and the scope (full index). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like googlepatents_detail and googlepatents_classification by emphasizing the full-index search and normalized hits, making it unambiguous as the primary search tool.

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 provides context on what can be searched (keyword, inventor, assignee, etc.) but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions or recommendations to use googlepatents_detail for specific patent lookups or googlepatents_classification for classification queries. The 'full index' phrasing implicitly suggests it's the main search, but explicit routing is missing.

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