Recherche Lauf

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses the full pipeline (variant generation, per-register querying, deduplication, similarity scoring), default registers, class handling, wildcard support, and the threshold/listing behavior for low-similarity hits. This goes well beyond a generic verb+resource statement.

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 dense but well structured: the first sentence states the core purpose and pipeline, followed by labeled clarifications for key parameters and thresholds. Every sentence adds meaningful operational information, and the format is easy to scan.

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 complex 10-parameter tool with no annotations, the description covers a lot: pipeline, defaults, edge-case behavior, and output contents. However, it leaves several parameters under-specified and does not reference sibling tools for routing. The output schema exists, so return-value details are not required, but the missing parameter semantics keep it from being fully complete.

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 register, klassen, zusatz_varianten, min_aehnlichkeit, and max_gelistet, but several parameters remain unexplained: umfang, max_varianten, max_pro_variante, and nur_lebend. Some are guessable from names, but not enough clarity for an agent invoking all 10 params.

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 this as the main trademark clearance search tool: a complete multi-register search that builds variants, queries registers, deduplicates, scores similarity, and returns one sorted hit list. It is clearly differentiated from sibling tools like tmview_get or eutm_search by being the aggregated 'main tool'.

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 makes the context clear: this is the comprehensive search across multiple registers, used when a full clearance search is needed. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when to prefer a direct register query, but the 'main tool' framing and multi-register scope provide strong usage context.

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