law.trademark-status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions the data source (real-time USPTO TSDR) and lists output fields (word mark, status, owner, etc.), but lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or permission requirements.

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?

Two sentences: first states the purpose and outputs, second adds authoritative context. No wasted words; essential information is front-loaded.

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 no output schema, the description lists key output fields. Two parameters are well-explained. Sibling context is clear. Missing guidance on what happens if both parameters are provided or neither, but overall sufficient for correct invocation.

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 the description adds useful constraints: serial number must be 8 digits, registration number 6-8 digits, and they are XOR. This enriches the schema's minimal descriptions.

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 specifies a clear action (verify a US trademark), resource (by USPTO serial or registration number), and outlines specific outputs (word mark, status, owner, etc.). It distinguishes itself from text-search tools like law.trademark-search.

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 note 'Number lookup only (no text search)' explicitly tells when not to use it. It also advises using the tool instead of model memory for accuracy. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives for text search.

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