search_patent_grants

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Search', which implies a read operation, but gives no details about pagination behavior, ILIKE pattern semantics, default limits, or whether any filters are mutually exclusive. It also omits that the schema uses partial matching for assignee/title, a behavioral trait not apparent from the schema alone.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently conveys the core purpose. However, it is concise to the point of under-specification, omitting important behavioral and usage details; still, as far as structure and length, it is appropriately compact.

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 13 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too thin to fully contextualize the tool. It does not mention pagination, cursor usage, or what the response contains. Compared to the sibling set (including full_text_search and many other search tools), there is no guidance on how this fits into the broader tool ecosystem, making the description incomplete for a search tool of this complexity.

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 only 31%, and the description does not compensate. It names a few fields (assignee, title, grant date) but adds no detail beyond the existing schema descriptions. It also introduces 'classification' which is not a parameter, and leaves the meaning of fields like kind_code, cursor, and application_number unexplained. The description adds minimal value over the sparse schema.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Search USPTO patent grants' and lists key search fields (assignee, title, classification, grant date). It clearly identifies the domain as patent grants, distinguishing it from siblings like search_filings or full_text_search. However, it mentions 'classification' as a searchable field while no such parameter exists in the schema, slightly undermining precision.

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. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or why search_patent_grants should be chosen over full_text_search or search_filings. The intended use case is only implied by the resource name.

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