search_patents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the cost-control requirement, the shape of the returned data (titles, abstracts, inventors, assignees, CPC codes), and a locale-specific behavior (CN patents include Chinese titles and abstracts). It does not mention pagination, rate limits, or auth, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three sentences, all load-bearing: purpose with facets first, the cost-control constraint second, and the return-shape/locale notes last. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 8 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description supplies the missing pieces an agent needs: the prerequisite filter constraint and a summary of the return payload including CN-specific behavior. Minor gaps remain around result ordering and whether limit is the only pagination mechanism, but nothing essential to calling it correctly is absent.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds a genuine cross-parameter constraint absent from the schema: at least one of country, cpc, or after is required. It also clarifies that query is optional and that results are summaries, both of which are not obvious from the schema defaults alone.

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 states a specific verb (Search) and resource (global patents) and enumerates the four filterable facets (keyword, country, CPC, date range), so an agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_patent or get_cited_by, but the search-vs-fetch distinction is clear from the phrasing.

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?

It gives an actionable usage constraint: at least one of country, cpc, or after must be provided to control query cost. That is clear operational guidance for selecting and shaping a call, though it stops short of naming an alternative tool for the cases where the constraint can't be met.

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