Nizza Validate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals per-term return semantics (harmonized yes/no and formal errors), the special report treatment of non-harmonized terms as objection risk, and the hard requirement that class must be supplied. This is substantial context beyond the tool name.

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 core purpose, then gives necessary input and output behavior. The final clause 'Klasse muss angegeben sein — ohne Klasse kein Eintrag' is slightly redundant, but overall every sentence contributes useful information.

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 output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return structure. It covers purpose, input format, required class, and validation-result behavior. Minor gaps remain around the 'sprache' parameter and potential batch or formatting limits, but the description is adequate for correct invocation.

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 does explain the required 'begriffe' parameter in detail, including format and class requirement, but the optional 'sprache' parameter is never mentioned. The name and default 'de' hint at language, but the description still leaves one parameter 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 states a specific action and resource: 'Prüft ein Waren-/Dienstleistungsverzeichnis gegen die harmonisierte Datenbank der EUIPO' (validates a goods/services list against the harmonized EUIPO database). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as nizza_suggest (suggesting terms) and nizza_klassenueberschriften (class headings).

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 operational guidance: terms must be in 'Klasse: Begriff' format, multiple terms of the same class must be entered individually, and class is required ('ohne Klasse kein Eintrag'). It does not explicitly mention when to choose this tool over alternatives, but the validation context and input constraints are clear enough.

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