search_patents

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains the search scope (patents, utility models, fields) but does not disclose behavioral traits such as being read-only, pagination behavior, authentication needs, or output format. As a search tool, it is likely safe, but this is not confirmed.

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 concise, consisting of two short segments. It front-loads the purpose and includes a usage hint. Every sentence contributes value, though it could be slightly more structured.

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 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the search scope and general nature. It hints at being the default among siblings but lacks explicit differentiation. Overall, it is adequate but could be more complete with usage boundaries.

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 adds no new meaning beyond what is already in the schema for the query parameter. It does not compensate for any gaps, as there are none.

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 it performs an integrated search of patents and utility models by keyword across fields like invention name, abstract, claims, and applicant. It includes a hint that this is the most common search, distinguishing it from more specific siblings, though not explicitly.

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 this is the default general search ('가장 일반적인 검색'), providing some guidance for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like search_by_applicant or search_patents_advanced, leaving room for ambiguity.

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