uspto_search_applications

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already declares this as a safe read operation, lowering the bar for behavioral disclosure. The description adds useful context: it uses the POST method, supports OpenSearch DSL syntax, and that an empty search returns recent applications. No contradiction with annotations; it enriches beyond them.

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 three sentences, efficiently front-loaded with the core purpose and syntax details, followed by filter semantics and default behavior. Every sentence contributes essential information without redundancy or filler.

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 complex 8-parameter search tool, the description plus fully-covered schema is nearly complete. It provides the critical query syntax and default behavior, but does not describe the return format or pagination details. However, since the schema documents all parameters and this is a search tool, the description is adequately 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 detailed examples for each parameter. The description adds significant value by explaining the q parameter's full syntax (booleans, wildcards, exact phrases, ranges, comparisons) and clarifying how filters and range filters work. This goes beyond the individual parameter descriptions.

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 'Search USPTO patent applications' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like uspto_application_details by focusing on search rather than retrieving a specific application. The mention of ODP query syntax further specifies the tool's scope.

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 clear context on how to construct queries, filters, and range filters, and notes that all params are optional. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like uspto_application_details or uspto_application_continuity. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are present.

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