swiss_ip_search_spc

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 outlining the return structure (source, total, count, results, next_page_token) and explaining that SPC extend patent protection, which is behaviorally relevant.

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 (3 sentences plus Args/Returns) and front-loaded with the main purpose. Use case tag is efficient. No unnecessary details.

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 an output schema present, the description need not detail return values but does so helpfully. It covers the required query parameter and pagination. For a search tool, it is sufficiently 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% per context, so the description must compensate. It lists the query parameter with examples ('Novartis', 'ibuprofen*'), but for page_size and page_token, it only provides brief translations without additional semantics beyond the schema's constraints. Partial compensation.

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 Supplementary Protection Certificates (ESZ/SPC) with a specific verb 'Durchsucht' and a dedicated use case tag. It distinguishes from sibling tools focused on patents and trademarks by targeting SPC, a distinct IP type.

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 specifies the domain (pharma/plant protection) and the IP type (ESZ/SPC), guiding when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare to siblings like patent searches.

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