p0010078_query_patent_info

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It implies a read operation (query) but does not explicitly state it is read-only, nor does it disclose any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects.

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?

Two sentences are concise. First states purpose, second adds date format. Could include more structure but efficient.

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 7 parameters and an output schema not shown, description lacks details on pagination (page_no, page_size), filtering by patent type (ptt_type), or extra_params. Date range is hinted but not fully explained. Incomplete for a query tool with many optional parameters.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It mentions date format for date parameters but provides no meaning for page_no, ptt_type, page_size, extra_params. Only ent_info is implied by '根据企业名称'. Insufficient detail.

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 it queries patent information with the enterprise as patent applicant, specifying the resource (patent info) and action (query by enterprise name). It distinguishes from siblings focusing on trademarks or copyrights.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like trademark or copyright queries. There are no prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.

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