get_owner_ttab_statsGet a compact TTAB history for one owner with substantive inter partes, opposition, cancellation, extension, appeal, and role breakdowns. Do not equate total records with initiated oppositions. Use get_owner_ttab_enforcement for date ranges or challenged-mark/class analysis.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| year | No | Filter to a specific year | |
| limit | No | ||
| owner_name | Yes | Owner name to search for |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false) already establish safety, and the description adds meaningful semantic context: 'compact', the scope 'for one owner', and a caution about interpretation of totals. It doesn't describe output structure, but for a read-only stats tool with good annotations, this exceeds the baseline.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and content, and every clause adds value—no filler, no repetition of schema details.
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 compact stats tool with no output schema, the description conveys the main output categories (opposition, cancellation, appeal, role breakdowns) and gives a clear alternative for deeper analysis. A slight gap is the lack of any indication of return shape or ordering, but the listed breakdowns and warning provide sufficient context.
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 67%, with owner_name and year described; limit lacks a description. The description reinforces 'one owner' and 'compact' but does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema. Given moderate coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and clear resource ('compact TTAB history for one owner'), enumerates the breakdown types (inter partes, opposition, cancellation, extension, appeal, role), and explicitly differentiates from the sibling tool get_owner_ttab_enforcement.
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?
It explicitly states when to use this tool versus an alternative: 'Use get_owner_ttab_enforcement for date ranges or challenged-mark/class analysis.' It also provides interpretive guidance ('Do not equate total records with initiated oppositions'), clarifying a common misuse.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clearly defined scopes, but several search/count tools overlap (search_trademarks, phonetic_search, run_knockout_search, get_similar_marks) and owner/firm analytics tools have similar boundaries. Descriptions help differentiate them, but the large set increases the chance of misselection.
All tool names follow a consistent lowercase snake_case verb_noun pattern (get_, search_, run_, analyze_, etc.). The only minor deviation is web_research, which is noun_verb, but it remains perfectly readable and consistent with the overall style.
61 tools is extreme for any server, far exceeding the 50+ threshold. Even for a comprehensive trademark platform, this number overwhelms agents with selection complexity and makes the toolset difficult to navigate.
Several tools launch asynchronous processes and instruct users to call status tools (get_prosecution_history_status, get_ttab_proceeding_analysis_status, get_office_action_research_status) that are not present in the toolset. Additionally, search_trademarks and phonetic_search reference list_marks_containing_term, which is also missing. These critical gaps cause agent failures when following the described workflows.