Rechercher des dessins et modèles

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the source scope (INPI, FR and WO collections) but says nothing about pagination behavior, result ordering, or what a result record contains.

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?

One front-loaded sentence naming the action and source, followed by a compact field enumeration. Every element earns its place, though the trailing list is close to restating the schema.

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?

For a 17-parameter search tool with no output schema, the definition covers what can be searched but not what comes back or how results are paged/ordered. Annotations and the rich schema carry most of the load, but the return-value gap remains notable given no output schema exists.

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 100%, so all 17 parameters are already documented in the schema, including defaults, ranges, and date formats. The description's field list mirrors the parameter names without adding syntax or usage detail 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?

States a specific verb (Recherche) plus resource (dessins et modèles) and scopes it to the INPI FR/WO collections. The enumerated searchable fields make it clearly distinct from sibling tools like rechercher_marques or rechercher_brevets.

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 search intent is implied by the verb and field list, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer this over fiche_modele, and no note about using requete_avancee for cases the structured filters don't cover.

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