law.trademark-search

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It details return fields, default live status, and filtering options. Lacks mention of rate limits or authentication, but overall transparent about behavior.

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?

Five well-structured sentences, front-loaded with main purpose. No superfluous words. 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?

Complete for a search tool with no output schema. Describes return fields, search modes, filters, and pagination. Clearly explains what each parameter does.

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%. Description adds context beyond schema: explains that query is full-text best-match ranked, and differentiates exact record lookup. Clarifies defaults for field and status.

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 US trademarks by wordmark text, owner, or goods/services, highlighting its unique value as the text search the USPTO has no public API for. It distinguishes from sibling law.trademark-status.

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 provides explicit alternatives: 'Use law.trademark-status for live USPTO prosecution detail on a known serial.' It explains when to use query vs serial/registrationNumber. Could be improved by stating when not to use this tool.

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