search_designs

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the read-only nature implicitly ('Search', 'Returns matching designs') and lists what comes back, but says nothing about authentication needs, result caps beyond the schema's limit, or whether matching is exact vs. substring.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by a compact return-value list and three short, non-redundant call examples. Every element earns its place 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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be spelled out, and all 8 parameters are schema-documented. A read-only, zero-required-parameter search tool is adequately covered, though a line about result pagination behavior or the absence of an exact-match mode would make it fully self-sufficient.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters, including defaults and ranges. The description's examples add narrow value by demonstrating three parameter usages, but no semantics beyond the schema (e.g., matching behavior, Locarno format) are provided. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource with clear scope: searching industrial designs registered in Turkey on TURKPATENT, and enumerates the returned fields. It is implicitly distinguishable from get_design_details (search vs. single-record retrieval), but it never explicitly contrasts itself with that sibling.

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 three usage examples show how to query by design_name, applicant, and locarno_class, which implies the main lookup modes. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this tool over get_design_details, no note that all parameters are combinable, and no statement about when not to use it.

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