Eutm Search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose that the tool returns a hit list with register number, owner, classes, and status, and it explains the special 'roh' mode behavior. However, it does not mention result limits, default filtering behavior, or other response details, leaving some behavioral aspects to inference.

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 compact and front-loads the key purpose before mode details, output fields, and the sibling alternative. The bracketed '[EU trade mark search]' is somewhat redundant with the title, but overall the description is dense and free of 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?

The description provides enough for basic usage: scope, mode options, return fields, and a routing hint to recherche_lauf. However, with six parameters and zero schema-level documentation, the lack of explanation for the optional filters and limits leaves gaps that the output schema only partially fills.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only explains 'modus' and its allowed values, including the raw RSQL mode. The other five parameters (zeichen, klassen, nur_lebend, max_treffer, nur_wortmarken) are not described in the tool description and must be inferred from their names or the bare 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 states a specific action ('Einzelne Abfrage der EUIPO-Datenbank') and a clear scope (EU trademarks and international registrations with EU designation). It also distinguishes the tool from the sibling recherche_lauf by noting that complete searches should use that tool instead.

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 explicitly says 'Für die vollständige Recherche recherche_lauf verwenden', which tells the agent when not to use this tool and which alternative to pick. The phrase 'Einzelne Abfrage' also clarifies that this is for single ad-hoc queries, not full searches.

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