swiss_ip_search_patents_by_applicant

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds behavioral details about return structure (source, total, count, results, next_page_token) and pagination, which complements 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 concise and well-structured, with a clear purpose, use case tag, and args section. It front-loads the main action. Minor redundancy (repeats 'Innovationsmonitoring') but overall 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?

The description covers input parameters with examples and outlines the return structure, which is sufficient for a search tool. It does not mention error handling or edge cases, but given the presence of an output schema (implied) and straightforward functionality, it is reasonably complete.

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?

Despite schema description coverage being 0%, the description explicitly lists all parameters with explanations and examples (e.g., 'ABB*' for applicant_name, pagination details for page_size and page_token). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's basic type and constraint information.

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 the tool's purpose: searching Swiss patents by applicant or inventor. It specifies the verb 'search' and resource 'Swiss patents by applicant', and includes a use case tag ('Innovationsmonitoring'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that search by other criteria.

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 usage context ('useful for competitive analysis and innovation monitoring') and includes a use case tag, but does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or suggest alternatives. It gives clear context without exclusions.

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