search_by_applicant

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as what happens with invalid input, rate limits, or authentication requirements. It only says it returns a list of applications.

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 concise sentence with an example. It is front-loaded and efficient, but lacks structural elements like bullet points or sections.

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 tool has 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the output format, pagination behavior, or how results are sorted beyond the 'descSort' parameter. Sibling tools are not referenced.

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%, so the parameters are already documented. The description adds no new parameter details beyond the example for 'applicant' (already in schema). Baseline 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 that the tool searches for patent applications by applicant name, with an example. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'by applicant', but does not explicitly contrast with similar tools like search_by_rightholder.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., search_by_rightholder or search_patents_advanced). It only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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