similar

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the source (Google's semantic models) and cost (Free), but lacks details on error handling, ordering, or rate limits. For a simple retrieval tool, the transparency is adequate but not thorough.

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, no fluff. The main action is front-loaded, and the sibling differentiation is placed naturally. Every sentence adds value.

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?

With 2 parameters fully described in schema, no output schema needed, and no annotations, the description covers the essential purpose, usage guidance, and a key incidental fact (Free). It could mention pagination or result structure, but overall it is complete for a simple tool.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it mentions 'for a given patent' which maps to patentNumber, but this is already implied by the parameter name. No enrichment of the limit parameter.

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 starts with a specific verb 'Return' and resource 'Google Patents' similar documents ranking for a given patent'. It clearly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'search' by contrasting inputs (existing patent vs. description query), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 states 'Distinct from search' and explains the alternative's behavior ('generates new queries from a description'), providing clear guidance on when to use this tool. The mention of 'Free' adds practical context.

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