patent_prior_art_search

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states it returns ranked patent results with specific fields, which is adequate for a search tool. However, it does not mention rate limits, cost implications beyond a marketing claim, or any side effects (though unlikely).

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 efficient with four sentences, each serving a purpose: purpose, inputs, outputs, and value proposition. The final sentence is slightly promotional but does not harm clarity. No redundant information.

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?

The description covers inputs and outputs comprehensively, listing returned fields. Without an output schema, this is necessary. It lacks usage guidance but is otherwise complete for a read-only search tool. Annotations would add safety context but are absent.

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 baseline is 3. The description repeats parameter categories ('technical description, optional keywords, CPC classification, date range') but adds no new meaning beyond the schema's descriptions. It does not clarify the input format or provide examples.

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 USPTO and EPO patent databases for prior art, specifying the resource (patent databases) and action (search). It differentiates from siblings like literature_search by focusing on patents, but doesn't explicitly contrast with scientific_data or others.

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 use for patent prior art searches but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like literature_search. No when-not-to-use or prerequisites are mentioned.

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