screener_patent_filings

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

No annotations are provided, so description carries burden. It details return fields and summary stats but does not disclose read-only nature, authentication needs, or rate limits. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Two sentences: first states purpose, second lists output. No redundant information, front-loaded, and every sentence adds value.

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 tool with one nested parameter and no output schema, the description compensates by listing all return fields and aggregate stats. Could mention limit/format usage, but schema covers that. Nearly complete.

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% with both limit and format described. Description adds no additional parameter context beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 screens USPTO granted patents across all tickers, with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling patent_filings_by_ticker which is per-ticker, so purpose is unambiguous.

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 use for broad screening by saying 'across all tickers', contrasting with per-ticker siblings, but does not explicitly state when to use or avoid alternatives. Context provides enough hint for an agent to differentiate.

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