tm_search

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful behavioral context by explaining default jurisdictions and the effect of worldwide=true, but it does not disclose result format, pagination, limits, or whether the operation has any side effects beyond being a search.

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 with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the key behavioral override is stated immediately after the default behavior, making the description easy to scan and digest.

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 basic call, the description is sufficient: it tells the agent what the tool searches, the defaults, and how to broaden to worldwide. But with no output schema and no explanation of max_results or nice_classes, an agent may still be unsure about expected responses or how to constrain results beyond the core query.

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 67%, so the description does not need to document everything, but it adds value beyond the schema by clarifying defaults for offices and live_only and by describing the effect of worldwide=true. However, max_results and nice_classes still lack semantic guidance in both the schema and the description.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Search trademarks in TMview') and states useful default scoping. However, it does not explicitly differentiate tm_search from the sibling tm_clearance, which is likely a related but distinct trademark search, so it misses full sibling differentiation.

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 gives clear context: it searches TMview, defaults to EU + Benelux and live rights, and supports a worldwide mode. It does not say when to prefer tm_search over tm_clearance or other sibling tools, so usage guidance is mostly implied rather than explicit.

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