search_patents

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses 'FREE, no payment and no key', the domain of search (US granted patents), and the free-to-search vs. paid full-record model. It does not mention result limits or pagination, so a minor gap.

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 front-loaded with key information (FREE, no key), then quickly covers search scope, returned fields, and usage. The Args section is helpful without being 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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description explains the query, return fields, and downstream action (get_record). It lacks pagination/result-limit details but is otherwise complete for a search tool.

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 single parameter 'query' is thoroughly explained with examples ('lithium battery cathode', 'Panasonic', patent number), adding significant meaning beyond the bare schema. Schema coverage is 0%, so this is fully compensated.

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 'Search granted US patents from the USPTO Open Data Portal' with specific search criteria (title, assignee, inventor, patent number, technology area) and lists return fields. This differentiates it from sibling search tools by being patent-specific.

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?

Explicitly mentions use cases ('prior art checks, freedom to operate research, competitor IP monitoring, and patent portfolio lookup') and names get_record as the alternative for buying full records, giving clear when-to-use and alternative guidance.

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