odp_search_applications

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses critical behavior: typed filters are AND-ed, query accepts Lucene syntax, inventor_name/assignee_name match the *first* inventor/applicant, and application/patent numbers are exact matches. It also notes the return is a normalized response. However, it omits potential rate limits or auth requirements, and does not describe default sort order or whether the API may truncate results beyond limit/offset, leaving minor gaps.

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 well-structured with a clear intro, usage directive, filter semantics, then an Args list with each parameter on its own line, and a Returns note. Despite having multiple params and examples, it remains readable and every sentence delivers value without fluff. The length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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 the tool's complexity (9 optional params, no annotations, no schema param descriptions), the description covers the core: when to use, how filters compose, param meanings, and the return type. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly. Minor omissions like sorting behavior, potential limits on offset/limit values, or whether wildcards are supported prevent a 5, but the overall picture is well-rounded.

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%, so the description must fully compensate, and it does: every parameter is explicitly listed with a human-readable meaning, including specifics like exact match for application_number/patent_number, 'matches first inventor' nuance, and date format (YYYY-MM-DD). The query parameter even includes concrete examples. This far exceeds schema-only guidance.

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 opens with a clear, specific verb and resource: 'Search patent applications in USPTO Open Data Portal.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly stating this is for filtering by criteria 'not available in PPUBS,' aligning with the sibling-tool ppubs_search_applications. This makes the tool's unique scope immediately understandable.

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 THIS TOOL WHEN' section explicitly states when to use this tool (filtering by applicant metadata, dates, or other criteria not available in PPUBS), which implicitly advises using PPUBS otherwise. It also clarifies that typed filters are AND-ed and query can be used for OR/complex expressions, guiding the user on how to structure searches effectively.

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