search_by_rightholder

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that right transfers are reflected, which is a behavioral clue, but it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, has rate limits, or other side effects. For a search tool, this is minimal transparency.

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 sentence with no redundant words. It includes a helpful bracketed category and the core functionality. Every element earns its place.

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?

With 6 parameters, all documented in schema but no output schema and no annotations, the description is too short. It does not explain pagination, sorting, or output format. More context about expected results or limitations would be beneficial.

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 does not add any additional meaning beyond what is already in the schema; it only repeats the purpose.

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 searches by the final right holder name who currently holds patent rights, reflecting right transfers. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_by_applicant, which searches by applicant rather than current owner.

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 usage for finding patents by current final right holder but does not explicitly provide when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to other sibling tools. The context is implied but not directly stated.

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