patentsview_search_assignees

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the tool's core behavior (partial match support, disambiguation), the limit constraints (default 100, max 1000), and the critical fact that the underlying API is defunct. This is highly transparent about the tool's expected utility and limitations.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a prominent deprecation notice, and a concise parameter list. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy or bloat.

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 simple two-parameter search tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it covers purpose, usage, deprecation, workaround, and parameter semantics. The presence of an output schema means return-value details are not required, and the description provides all necessary decision-making context for an AI agent.

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 description provides meaningful explanations for both parameters: 'name' is described as an assignee/company name with partial match support, and 'limit' is documented with its default and maximum. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this fully compensates for the schema's bare title-only property definitions.

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 the tool searches for assignees (companies/organizations) with disambiguation, using a specific verb (Search) and resource (assignees). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like patentsview_search_inventors and patentsview_search_patents by focusing on the assignee entity and the disambiguation feature.

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 explicitly notes that the PatentsView API was shut down on March 20, 2026, and directs users to a specific alternative (ppubs_search_patents with an AN/ query) as a workaround. This is clear when/when-not guidance and identifies a sibling alternative, exceeding typical usage documentation.

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