tm_detail

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It does enumerate the main data categories returned (status, dates, validity, renewals, holder, oppositions, goods/services), which is useful, but it does not mention limitations such as data freshness, availability, or that the result is based on exact application number matching. There is no contradiction with annotations because none exist.

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 a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Full EUIPO case file for an EU application number') before listing the included contents. Every phrase earns its place, and there is no redundant or vague filler.

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?

For a single-parameter lookup tool, the description lists the key return contents and the geographic scope, which is adequate for basic invocation. However, since there is no output schema, the description does not fully communicate the response structure or potential edge cases, and it leaves the relationship to sibling search/clearance tools implicit.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameter is already well-documented with an example. The tool description reinforces that the parameter is an EU application number and that the tool is EU-only, but it adds no new formatting, validation, or domain details beyond what the schema already provides.

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 the resource (full EUIPO case file) and scope (EU marks only) and enumerates the contained data fields, making it easy to distinguish from siblings like tm_search or tm_clearance. However, the verb is implicit rather than explicit ('Full... case file' implies retrieval) and it does not name any sibling directly.

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 intended use is implied: when you need a comprehensive EUIPO case file by application number, use this tool. Yet it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it, no alternative tool names, and no boundary with tm_search or tm_clearance beyond the 'EU marks only' scope.

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