search_patents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the data source (TURKPATENT/Turkey) and the returned fields, which is useful, but 'Search' only implies a read-only operation without stating it, and there is no mention of pagination defaults, rate limits, or authentication requirements despite limit/offset parameters existing.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by return fields and then a compact examples block. Every element is relevant, though the examples section could be considered slightly verbose given the schema already names the fields.

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 the return fields need not be fully spelled out, and all ten parameters are schema-documented. The main gap is the absence of routing guidance against get_patent_details and any behavioral notes for a no-annotation tool, but overall it is complete enough to invoke correctly.

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 ten parameters, making the baseline 3 appropriate. The examples add marginal value by demonstrating realistic values for title, applicant, and ipc_class, but they don't cover the other seven parameters or clarify filter-combination behavior.

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 scope ('Search patents registered in Turkey on TURKPATENT'), which clearly separates it from search_trademarks and search_designs by resource. However, it never explicitly distinguishes itself from the get_patent_details sibling (search vs. retrieve a specific patent), so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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 examples imply how to use the tool (search by title, applicant, or IPC class), giving implied usage context. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance, no mention of when to prefer get_patent_details for a known application number, and no statement about combining filters.

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