legal_search_patents_by_keyword

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

The description clearly states behavioral traits not covered by annotations (none provided): 'Read-only. No side effects. Idempotent. Returns up to 10 matches. 24-hour cache.' This fully compensates for missing annotations.

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 well-structured, starting with the main action, then behavior, parameters, usage, and source. However, it includes a lengthy feedback instruction that could be separated, slightly reducing conciseness.

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?

The description covers purpose, parameters, usage, behavior, output (patent numbers, titles, filing dates), data source (EPO OPS + USPTO), and cache duration. It also provides a fallback feedback mechanism, making it highly 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates fully by explaining each parameter: keywords ('Search terms describing the invention e.g. neural network image classification'), jurisdiction ('One of EP, US, or WO. Optional. Default EP'), and date_from ('Earliest filing date in ISO 8601 format e.g. 2020-01-31').

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 explicitly states 'Search patents by keyword across EPO, USPTO, or WIPO.' and distinguishes from the sibling tool legal_fetch_patent_by_number, providing clear purpose and differentiation.

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 explicit guidance: '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.' It clearly states when to use and when not to use.

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