search_fda_orange_book_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 states the tool returns patent details but does not disclose behavioral traits such as rate limits, pagination behavior (beyond parameters), or whether the action is read-only. The absence of any behavioral context beyond 'returns' is a gap but not misleading.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with action and resource. Every sentence adds value: first states what it does, second details search parameters and returns. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

For a search tool with 5 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers key inputs and typical outputs. It lacks mention of default limit or pagination behavior, but the schema partially compensates. Given sibling complexity (multiple FDA search tools), it sufficiently differentiates via patent-specific details.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 5 parameters. The description only summarizes three of them (drugName, applNo, patentNo) without adding new meaning beyond the schema. For skip and limit, no additional context is provided. Baseline of 3 applies because schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'Search', the resource 'FDA Orange Book patent data', and the specific search fields (drug name, application number, patent number). It also lists return details (expiry dates, flags, exclusivities), making it distinct from sibling tools like search_fda_orange_book (general) and search_fda_drug_patent_expiry (focused on expiry).

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 implies usage for searching Orange Book patents via various criteria, but does not explicitly guide when to choose this tool over alternatives like search_fda_orange_book or search_fda_drug_patent_expiry. The 'Find patents by...' phrasing suggests capability but lacks exclusionary context.

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