tm_clearance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It is transparent about the output shape: 'a verdict plus three lists: identical live marks, identical expired marks, and live similar rights in your Nice classes.' It clearly implies a read-only check, though it does not disclose failure modes or edge-case 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?

Three sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, the return payload is described precisely, and the usage cue 'Start here' is minimal and effective. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description covers the return structure with the verdict and the three lists. Parameter semantics are sufficiently covered by the 100% schema description. Minor omissions like error handling or what 'verdict' contains prevent a perfect score.

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%, so the parameters are already documented. The description adds some context by tying 'name' to EU/Benelux registers and 'Nice classes' to the similarity lists, which is useful but not extensive. It stays at the baseline because it does not add significant new parameter-level detail 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?

The description clearly identifies a specific operation: 'Clearance check on a name in the EU and Benelux registers' and specifies the output components. It doesn't explicitly compare against sibling tools, but 'Start here' positions it as the entry point, making its purpose distinctive enough.

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 phrase 'Start here' gives implied usage guidance: this is meant to be the initial clearance step. However, it does not name alternatives, state when not to use this tool, or explain how it relates to other search or watch tools.

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