patentsview_search_patents

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It openly reveals that the underlying API is discontinued as of March 20, 2026, implying calls will fail. This is a critical behavioral trait disclosed transparently, and it sets accurate expectations for the agent.

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 structured with a prominent IMPORTANT warning first, followed by an Args list. It is somewhat long due to the essential shutdown notice, but every sentence adds value. It avoids fluff and is front-loaded with the most critical information, earning a high but not perfect score.

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?

The description is fully complete for its context: it tells the agent the tool is non-functional, provides alternatives, and documents all parameters thoroughly. An output schema exists, so return values are covered. There are no gaps given the tool's deprecated status.

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 adds meaningful details beyond the schema: it explains what 'query' targets (titles and abstracts), enumerates valid values for 'search_type' (any, all, phrase), and specifies the max limit (1000), none of which are in the schema. This compensates for the 0% schema coverage and enriches parameter understanding.

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 'Search US patents with PatentsView full-text search' which specifies the exact action and resource. It also distinguishes the tool by explicitly noting the API shutdown and recommending pPubs as an alternative, thereby differentiating it from sibling tools like ppubs_search_patents.

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 explicit guidance: it states the API is shut down, directs users to ppubs_search_patents for full-text search, and suggests odp_search_datasets for bulk data. This is a clear 'when not to use' and lists concrete alternatives, fulfilling the usage guideline dimension perfectly.

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