Trademark Search

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

Annotations already indicate this is a read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds valuable context beyond this: it specifies which trademark registries are checked (USPTO and EUIPO) and details the technical implementations (Turso SQLite FTS5, Trademark Search API with OAuth2, fallback mechanisms). This enhances transparency about data sources and reliability, though it doesn't cover rate limits or auth needs beyond OAuth2 mention.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence adds technical implementation details, which are relevant but could be considered slightly dense. Overall, it's efficient with minimal waste, though not perfectly concise.

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 the tool's complexity (checking multiple registries with technical fallbacks), annotations cover safety aspects, but there's no output schema. The description provides good context on data sources and implementations but doesn't explain return values or result format. For a read-only query tool, this leaves gaps in understanding what the agent will receive, making it adequate but not fully complete.

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%, with the parameter 'brand_name' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any semantic details about the parameter beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain format constraints or provide examples). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 tool's purpose: 'Check trademark registries for existing registrations of a brand name.' This specifies the verb ('check'), resource ('trademark registries'), and target ('brand name'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like 'brandomica_check_all' or 'brandomica_compare_brands', which might also involve trademark checking, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions technical details about providers (USPTO, EUIPO) but doesn't clarify if this is the primary trademark check tool or how it relates to siblings like 'brandomica_check_all' or 'brandomica_batch_check'. There's no explicit when/when-not or alternative usage context.

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