Nizza Klassenueberschriften

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that headings are official but non-exhaustive, which is meaningful behavioral context. It does not mention language behavior, selection semantics, or whether the operation is read-only, but the output schema likely covers return structure.

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-loaded with the object and purpose. The caveat about IP Translator is integrated without unnecessary expansion. Minor redundancy exists with the bracketed English label, but it does not meaningfully hurt usability.

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 output schema supplies return-shape information, but the input semantics are incomplete for an agent that needs to invoke non-default behavior. The description does not clarify accepted sprache values or the exact relationship between klassen values and 'all 45 or selection'. This leaves moderate ambiguity for a tool with no annotation support and 0% schema description coverage.

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. 'Alle 45 oder Auswahl' partially explains the klassen parameter but does not specify how to encode 'all' vs. a selection in the schema or what null means. The sprache parameter is not described at all, leaving a key input undocumented.

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 identifies the resource: official Nice Classification class headings, and states the purpose ('zur Orientierung über den Ähnlichkeitsbereich'). It also adds a key limitation ('nicht als Verzeichnis'), which helps distinguish it from a comprehensive classification lookup, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling Nizza 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?

The description gives clear intended-use context: use for orientation about similarity range, not as an authoritative directory. It also warns that class headings do not cover the whole class since IP Translator, providing a when-not-to-rely-on-it signal. However, it does not explicitly direct the agent to alternative sibling tools.

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