legal_search_patents_by_keyword

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds details like 'Returns up to 10 matches,' '24-hour cache,' and 'Verified source: EPO OPS + USPTO.' Also includes the feedback mechanism. No contradictions.

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 paragraph but well-organized, starting with purpose, then parameters, usage guidance, and additional notes. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy.

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 3 parameters (all documented), an output schema exists, and the description covers return fields, limits, cache, source, and feedback. It fully addresses the needs for a search tool.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds value with examples (e.g., 'neural network image classification' for keywords, ISO 8601 format for date_from) and clarifies defaults and options (EP default for jurisdiction).

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 'Search patents by keyword across EPO, USPTO, or WIPO.' It specifies a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from the sibling tool legal_fetch_patent_by_number.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this when finding prior art or exploring a technology landscape without a specific number. Use legal_fetch_patent_by_number instead when you have the patent number already.' Also notes read-only, idempotent, no side effects.

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