patent_search

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

Discloses behaviors beyond annotations: auto-generates assignee name variations, handles no matches and failures explicitly, mentions rate limits and provider fallback, and 24-hour caching. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Single paragraph with all key info front-loaded (purpose, then behavior, then alternatives). Each sentence adds value, though slightly dense; could be more structured but remains efficient.

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?

Covers purpose, input details (query types, parameters), output format (JSON fields), error handling, caching, rate limits, sibling alternatives. Highly complete given complexity and existing output schema.

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 3. Description adds meaning: explains query accepts patent numbers or natural language, and details search_type strategies. This enhances understanding beyond 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?

States verb 'Search' and resource 'Google Patents' with clear use cases: prior art, competitive landscapes, specific patents by number. Distinguishes from siblings by later referencing academic_search and web_search for other content types.

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?

Explicitly advises when to use alternatives: 'Use academic_search for published research papers, or web_search for general technical content.' Provides context for patent-specific searches.

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