swiss_ip_search_patents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by listing the return fields (title, applicant, IPC classification, dates, legal status) and parameter details, which go beyond the annotations without contradiction.

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 structure: purpose sentence, use case tag, return summary, and labeled Args section. The use of formatting (use_case tag) aids readability, though the Args block is somewhat verbose.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (single nested param with four sub-params) and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the use case, pagination (page_token), and expected return fields. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 0% (top-level 'params' lacks description), the description explicitly lists each parameter, provides examples for 'query', and explains defaults like 'sort_descending: Neueste zuerst'. This adds meaningful guidance beyond the schema's structure.

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 directly states 'Durchsucht das Schweizer Patentregister nach Freitext' (Searches the Swiss patent register by free text), and the annotation title confirms 'Schweizer Patente suchen'. Among sibling tools specializing in applicant or publication searches, this general free-text search is clearly distinguished.

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 includes a use case tag ('Technologie-/Innovationsrecherche in Schweizer Patenten') which provides context, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention specific alternatives like the sibling search tools for applicants or publications.

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