company_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does substantial work: it discloses the data source ('scrapes Google Patents directly'), the cost profile ('Zero BigQuery cost'), and expected latency (5-10s). It omits auth requirements, rate limits, and failure modes, but the disclosed operational traits are well above baseline.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then outputs, cost, use cases, and latency in a compact block. The enumerated return fields are dense but justified since no output schema exists; each sentence carries information rather than 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating returned fields (total count, top tech areas, jurisdiction coverage, activity level, risk assessment), plus cost and latency. A practitioner could call it correctly; only cross-sibling routing guidance is thin.

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 single company_name parameter is fully documented in the schema, including Chinese/English examples. The description's mention of 'Chinese or English' duplicates the schema, so it adds no meaning beyond structured data — baseline 3 for full schema coverage.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a quick patent portfolio summary for a company') and immediately frames it as an aggregate/portfolio-level tool, which implicitly separates it from the patent-level siblings like get_patent or get_patent_claims.

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?

Names three concrete scenarios ('initial company screening, competitor overview, due diligence triage'), giving an agent a clear sense of when this is the right entry point. It stops short of naming an alternative sibling or stating when NOT to use it (e.g., when you already have a company ID and want full results).

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