namesniper_trademark

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the return format (JSON with matching marks and summary with risk rating), the effect of includeVariations (slower, more lookups), the fact that it's not legal advice, and the API key requirement. This is rich, honest context.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds value: what it does, what it returns and the variation trade-off, plus necessary caveats (not legal advice, API key required). No fluff or 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?

Despite having no output schema, the description adequately explains the return content (JSON, matching marks, summary, risk rating). It also covers auth requirements (API key), scope (US), and operational nuance (includeVariations). For a tool with simple parameters and no output schema, this is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful behavioral context for includeVariations (slower, more lookups) and implies the mandatory nature of the name parameter through the screening purpose. This exceeds baseline by adding nuance beyond the schema's simple 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 a specific action ('Screen a brand name for US trademark conflicts against the USPTO database with similarity analysis') with an explicit resource (USPTO database). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like namesniper_check_domains or namesniper_check_social, which target different trademark/domain/social checks.

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 establishes a clear use case (US trademark conflict screening) and provides guidance on the optional includeVariations parameter ('slower, more lookups'). However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative sibling tools, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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