Patent Search

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

The description discloses behavioral traits beyond annotations: it is read-only (consistent with readOnlyHint=true) and open-world (consistent with openWorldHint=true). It adds context about result caching (30 minutes) and the limitation that not all patents are indexed, which is valuable for agent decision-making.

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 well-structured with clear sections (When to use, Features, Important limitation, Search types, Caching). It is informative but slightly verbose; each sentence adds value, though some redundancy exists (e.g., repeating limitation details). A score of 4 reflects strong structure with minor efficiency gains possible.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, output schema present, multiple search types), the description is comprehensive. It explains how to interpret results (links, PDFs), covers edge cases (assignee variations), and provides fallback strategies. The output schema's existence reduces the need to describe return values, but the description still covers behavioral aspects.

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?

Input schema covers all 9 parameters with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description goes further by providing usage tips (e.g., trying company names without spaces, trying previous names) and explaining search types and patent office codes, adding meaning beyond the schema.

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 it searches patents using Google Custom Search API. It specifies the resource (patents via patents.google.com) and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'google_search' or 'scrape_page' by mentioning unique features such as patent office filtering and assignee variant handling.

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 lists when to use the tool (prior art search, FTO analysis, etc.) and provides important limitations, noting that Google Custom Search does not index all patents. It also offers alternatives for comprehensive company research, such as using 'scrape_page' directly.

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