patentsview_search_by_ipc

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden; it clearly reveals the underlying API's shutdown and advises a workaround, which is critical behavioral context. It stops short of describing error/failure behavior if the tool is called, but the presence of an output schema mitigates the need to document return values.

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 front-loaded, leading with the critical shutdown warning before the argument list. Every sentence adds value with no filler or unnecessary repetition of schema details.

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, one-step search tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, and the crucial deprecation/alternative. It is slightly thin on what happens if someone invokes this tool anyway, but 'API shut down' communicates enough for most agents.

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 carry parameter meaning. It does: ipc_code gets an IPC explanation and tangible example ('G06F'), and limit gets default and max constraints, with the max not present in the schema.

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 uses a specific verb+resource construction: 'Search patents by IPC code,' which clearly states scope and differentiates from sibling tools like patentsview_search_by_cpc and ppubs_search_patents. The IPC example reinforces the unit of search.

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 provides a when-not-to-use directive: the PatentsView API was shut down, and it names the alternative, ppubs_search_patents, with the query strategy ('IPC query') to use instead. This is ideal guidance.

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