Nizza Suggest

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the tool combines EUIPO suggestion list lookup and full-text search in a single call, and that an optional class filter exists. It does not cover output details or edge cases, but the output schema covers the 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 well-structured: one dense sentence that starts with the core purpose, then adds the two-mode behavior and the optional class restriction. There is no redundant restatement of the title or filler content.

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?

With an output schema available and a relatively simple parameter set, the description provides the essential input semantics and behavioral model. It is slightly incomplete regarding usage routing and the two undocumented parameters, but it is adequate for an agent to invoke the tool 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains freitext as a free-text goods/services input and klasse as an optional class restriction, but it does not describe sprache or max_treffer, which are left to their names and defaults. This is only partial compensation for the missing schema 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 uses a specific verb ('liefert') and a clear resource ('passenden harmonisierten Begriffen ... mit Nizza-Klasse') for a free-text goods/services input. It also distinguishes itself by naming the two lookup modes in one call, making it easy to tell apart from siblings like nizza_validate or nizza_klassenueberschriften.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when you have a free-text goods/services description and need Nice classification suggestions. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions/conditions, so the usage guidance is only implied.

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