search_ip

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and excels at it. It reveals that all results include an alive/dead determination, that expired rights render as display:"dimmed", that aggregations like alive_in_inspected are based on the current determination count rather than total results, and that coverage_warning must be read. It also warns that the tool is not a final legal-status authority.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by dense behavioral caveats and usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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?

Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description sufficiently equips an agent to call the tool correctly: it explains the purpose, key output behaviors (alive judgment, dimmed display, aggregation semantics, coverage_warning), and the necessary follow-up with rights_alive for confirmation. What remains unspecified, such as exact result fields, is not required for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond the schema; its caveats concern output semantics rather than how to fill in query, limit, date_from, or applicant. This meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: '특허·실용신안을 키워드로 검색합니다' (searches patents and utility models by keyword). It also distinguishes itself from the rights_alive sibling by positioning search_ip as the broad search step and rights_alive as the confirmation step, so an agent can tell them apart.

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 explicitly names use cases ('선행기술 조사나 경쟁사 포트폴리오 파악에 쓰되') and gives an explicit when-not-to-rely-on-it rule: before using a specific case as a basis, call rights_alive again to confirm. This is direct guidance on when to use this tool vs the alternative.

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