patentsview_search_by_cpc

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the critical behavior that the tool is non-functional due to the API shutdown, and provides an example query. It doesn't describe the expected error or return format, but the shutdown warning is the most important behavior and is well-covered.

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, front-loads the critical shutdown warning, and then provides parameter details in a clear Args block. Every sentence adds value, with no wasted words.

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 actual non-functional status, the description is complete: it states what the tool would do, why it can't be used, and exactly which sibling tool to use instead. The parameter documentation is sufficient for understanding the alternative query format.

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 fully compensates. It explains cpc_code with a concrete example ('G06N3/08') and clarifies limit's default (100) and maximum (1000), adding meaning beyond the raw schema types and default.

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 states 'Search patents by CPC classification code' with a clear verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself by explicitly directing users to ppubs_search_patents as a workaround, which differentiates it from sibling patent search tools.

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 provides an explicit IMPORTANT warning that the PatentsView API was shut down and instructs agents to use ppubs_search_patents with a CPC query instead. This gives clear when-not-to-use and an alternative, exceeding the minimum guidance.

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