search_citations

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

The description discloses a key behavioral trait (temporary unavailability) but does not explicitly state read-only behavior or potential error outcomes. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries responsibility, and it covers the most critical dynamic aspect.

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 succinct, leading with the purpose, followed by an important note, then parameter details. It is well-structured and free of unnecessary verbiage, making it efficient for quick reference.

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 that an output schema exists (per context signals), it is acceptable that the description omits return details. It covers parameter usage and the availability caveat, but does not explain edge cases like date filtering semantics or pagination beyond defaults, leaving minor ambiguity.

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?

Each parameter in the schema is given a concise explanation (e.g., 'Patent that is citing', 'Filter by assignee name', 'Date range start (YYYY-MM-DD)'), adding meaningful context beyond the bare schema. This fully clarifies how to use each argument.

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's function as 'Search citation records', which is specific and distinguishes it from other search tools for patents, trademarks, etc. It also provides an alternative when unavailable, reinforcing its purpose.

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 explicitly notes temporary unavailability and directs users to 'patentsview_search_patents instead', providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance. This effectively differentiates it from alternatives.

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