law.trademark-status

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It discloses the authoritative real-time source, the type of results returned (LIVE/DEAD, owner, classes), and the limitation to numeric lookups. However, it does not describe error behavior or response structure, but given no output schema, the prose covers key outputs.

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-loading the core action, and every phrase adds value. No unnecessary repetition.

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 only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, input constraints, data source, and return fields. Lacks mention of error handling or empty results, but overall well-rounded.

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?

The schema already describes both parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds clarity by specifying digit lengths ('8 digits', '6-8 digits') and the XOR relationship ('XOR with registrationNumber'), which is not in the schema 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 clearly states it verifies US trademarks by serial or registration number, lists specific returned data (word mark, status, dates, owner, etc.), and explicitly distinguishes from text search by stating 'Number lookup only (no text 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 description advises use to confirm a mark exists and is active via authoritative USPTO data rather than model memory. It implies not for text search by stating number-only lookup, and the sibling list includes a separate search tool, but no explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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