swiss_ip_search_recent_filings

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's additional note about date_to being exclusive adds value but is not major. The description does not contradict 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 concise (6 lines), front-loads the purpose, and uses structured tags for emphasis. It avoids redundancy but could be slightly more streamlined.

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 multiple siblings and pagination complexity, the description covers the core behavior and return structure but lacks guidance on pagination flow or when to use page_token. An output schema exists (not shown) but isn't referenced.

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's top-level parameter lacks description (coverage 0%), but the inner properties are well-described in the schema. The description repeats these and adds the exclusive note for date_to, offering slight additional value 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 the tool searches Swiss IP entries within a date range, listing supported types (trademark, patent, etc.). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools that target specific IP types, which would clarify when to use this general search vs. specialized ones.

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 <use_case> tag suggests Trendanalyse, providing implied usage context. The <important_notes> give key behaviors (date_to exclusive). However, no explicit guidance on when not to use the tool or alternatives like swiss_ip_search_patents for specific types.

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