Marken Status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It transparently states that the tool checks configuration and API reachability rather than performing a search or mutation. It does not explicitly state side-effects are absent, but 'status' and 'Prüft' strongly imply a non-destructive diagnostic operation.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The first sentence states what the tool does, and the second provides a concrete trigger for use. Every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter status/diagnostic tool with an output schema and a clear usage rule, the description is complete. It tells the agent what is checked, what system is involved, and when to call it. The output schema covers return-value details.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is complete, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameters. The baseline of 4 applies because parameter semantics are not a concern here.

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 ('Prüft') and names the exact resource (EUIPO-API configuration and reachability), with concrete aspects enumerated (Umgebung, Credentials, Token). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling search and retrieval tools.

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?

It explicitly states when to call this tool first: whenever a search run fails. This gives the agent a clear decision rule and positions it as a diagnostic prerequisite, which is exactly the kind of usage guidance needed.

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