search_disclosures

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does well: it discloses ordering (newest first), the result cap (up to 20), the fields returned per record (permalink pattern, server_time, bundle_hash, proof_status), and that user_content is verbatim submitter text. It does not address pagination beyond 20 results or error/empty-result behavior.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the three sentences each add information (matching/ordering, return payload, scope disclaimer). The first sentence is dense with parentheticals, but no sentence is filler.

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 one-parameter search tool with an output schema, the description covers syntax, scope, ordering, limits, and payload contents adequately. The only real gap is what happens past the 20-result cap.

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 coverage is 0% and the single parameter has no schema description, so the description must compensate and largely does: q is documented as matching title or abstract using web search syntax with concrete examples (words, "a phrase", -word, or). It stops short of noting case sensitivity or whether q is required.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Public records of the PatentRef registry (dated technical disclosures)') and states the match field (title or abstract), ordering, and cap. It also distinguishes the resource from a related one by noting a record 'shows what was published and when, not a patent or an opinion,' separating it from search_patents.

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?

Usage context is made clear through the disambiguation from patents and opinions, which tells the agent when this resource is the right one. However, it never names search_patents or similar_patents as alternatives, nor does it state exclusions such as needing an id-based lookup instead.

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