swiss_ip_search_patent_publications

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the context of searching official publications but does not significantly supplement the behavioral profile beyond 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 reasonably concise, with a clear use case and parameter list. The structure is adequate, though the inclusion of a <use_case> tag is somewhat unconventional.

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 outlines the return fields and the tool's purpose. Given the output schema exists, further detail on return structure is unnecessary. However, pagination behavior via page_token could be clarified.

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 high description coverage (100% with descriptions for all parameters), so baseline is 3. The tool description lists three of four parameters (missing sort_descending) and adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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 searches Swiss patent publications, with a specific use case for prior art searches. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like swiss_ip_search_patents, which might have overlapping functionality.

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 a use case ('Stand-der-Technik-Recherche und Innovationsmonitoring') but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool versus alternatives, or prerequisites.

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