patentsview_search_inventors

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses a major trait: the underlying API is shut down and this tool is effectively deprecated, plus it includes limit bounds. It does not describe error/response behavior, but an output schema exists and the shutdown notice provides substantial context.

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 with the purpose, followed by a clearly marked IMPORTANT notice and succinct Args documentation. Every sentence adds necessary information with no 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 two-parameter search tool with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, deprecation status, workaround, and parameter semantics. It is sufficient for selecting and invoking the tool safely, though it omits potential details about result ordering or pagination behavior.

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 schema descriptions are empty, so the Args block compensates: 'name' is explained as 'Inventor name (last name, or "First Last")' and 'limit' as 'Max results (default: 100, max: 1000)'. Both parameters gain meaning, though format details like wildcards and case sensitivity are not covered.

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 specific verb-resource pair: 'Search for inventors with disambiguation.' This clearly states what the tool does and hints at its distinct behavior. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like patentsview_get_inventor or explain what 'disambiguation' means.

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 gives explicit guidance: the PatentsView API was shut down on March 20, 2026, and directs the agent to use ppubs_search_patents with an IN/"last name" query as a workaround. This is a clear when-not-to-use instruction with a named alternative.

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