Patent PreCheck — semantic corpus search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states that the tool does not use LLM scoring and returns ranked matches with similarity scores, which is useful. However, it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only or if it has any side effects, leaving some uncertainty.

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 a single, well-formed sentence that front-loads the key information. It is efficiently written without extraneous detail, though it could benefit from a brief note on when to prefer this over other search tools.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the return type (ranked matches with similarity scores) and the core functionality. The parameter coverage is sufficient given the schema's descriptions. It addresses the key aspects of the tool.

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 75%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add new meaning beyond what the schema provides for parameters like 'code', 'filename', 'tier', and 'limit'. The explanation of 'code' as 'Source code or invention description' is adequate but not enhanced.

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 identifies the tool as a semantic search on a prior-art corpus, specifying 'Fast semantic search against the 1M+ prior-art corpus without LLM scoring. Returns ranked matches with similarity scores.' This distinguishes it from siblings like lookup or compare 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 mentions 'without LLM scoring,' which hints at a faster but less sophisticated search, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like precheck_prior_art or precheck_lookup_patent. No exclusions or when-not guidance provided.

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