ppubs_search_applications

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects, auth, rate limits, etc. It states the tool 'search' and returns a 'Normalized response', but doesn't explicitly confirm it's read-only, safe, or mention any rate limits or authentication requirements. The absence of such details leaves gaps in behavioral transparency, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 well-structured with clear sections: a one-line summary, 'USE THIS TOOL WHEN' block, Args list, and Returns note. It is detailed but not overly verbose; every sentence adds value. It's slightly longer than the minimal examples but appropriately sized for the complexity of the query syntax.

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 has an output schema (indicated by 'Has output schema: true'), the description need not explain return values in detail. The description covers purpose, usage context, query syntax, and defaults, which is adequate for a moderate-complexity search tool. It could mention output structure briefly, but the schema fills that gap, so completeness is strong.

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 substantial meaning beyond the schema, particularly for the query parameter: it explains BRS syntax, field qualifiers, quoting, and that multi-word terms are AND-ed. For offset and limit, it mentions pagination implicitly and states max 500 for limit. Sort is only given a default, no options are listed. Overall, it significantly enriches parameter understanding, but not exhaustively for all parameters.

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 published US patent applications in Patent Public Search. The subsequent explanation that applications publish 18 months after filing and are pre-grant distinguishes it from sibling tools like ppubs_search_patents, which presumably covers granted patents. This is specific and unambiguous.

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 includes a 'USE THIS TOOL WHEN' section that explicitly states the condition: searching pre-grant published applications. It also references ppubs_search_patents for query syntax, indirectly pointing to an alternative. However, it doesn't explicitly say when *not* to use this tool or mention other alternatives for different scenarios, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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