law.trademark-search

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

Describes input modes, default status (live), and return fields (wordmark, serial, etc.). Does not mention rate limits or authentication, but given no annotations, description carries full burden and covers core behavior well.

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 clear structure: purpose first, then input modes and filters, then return fields, ending with sibling guidance. No wasted words.

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 all 8 parameters in description, lists return fields despite no output schema. Moderate complexity; description is thorough enough for effective use.

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%, but description adds value by explaining default behavior for status (live=registered+pending, all includes dead) and identifying return fields. Provides context 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?

Clearly states it searches US trademarks by wordmark text, owner, or goods/services. Distinguishes from sibling law.trademark-status by noting it provides full-text search without a public API, and that law.trademark-status is for prosecution details on known serials.

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 says when to use query (full-text best-match) vs serial/registrationNumber (exact record). Also directs to law.trademark-status for live prosecution detail on a known serial, providing alternative when appropriate.

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