gpss_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the '+'/'-' operator semantics, that an empty databases list means all 23 databases, the values of status and kind, and the default output field set. It omits auth/permission needs and result-size behavior, but the query-construction contract is thoroughly disclosed.

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?

Extremely dense but nearly every clause carries information; the tool's purpose is front-loaded and examples are packed inline. It reads as one long run-on rather than cleanly separated sentences, but there is little true waste.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the complex nested conditions object and enum-like status/kind values. The main gap is pagination (qty/skip) and the field-code vocabulary, which appears delegated to the sibling gpss_codes.

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 0% (params have only titles like 'Qty' and 'Skip'), so the description must compensate, and it does for conditions, databases, status, kind, and output. However qty (default 20) and skip (default 0) are never mentioned, leaving pagination semantics undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: GPSS 檢索 (searching the TIPO GPSS patent database), which clearly differs from siblings like gpss_get (retrieval by ID) and gpss_build_url (URL construction). It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the search semantics are unmistakable.

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 explains how to use the tool (query syntax, field codes, database selection) rather than when to use it versus gpss_get or ops_search. No exclusions or routing conditions are stated, so usage is implied rather than explicit.

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