Tmview Get

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently lists the included data (goods/services, owner, representative, oppositions, office link, See-IP for AT), which helps set expectations. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, how errors like an invalid ST13 are handled, or any access constraints.

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 one dense sentence that front-loads the core action and then enumerates the returned components. It is efficient with no filler, though the long comma-separated list would be slightly easier to parse as structured bullets.

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 single-parameter retrieval tool with an output schema present, the description covers the essential behavior and output scope well. It lacks only marginal details such as error behavior or prerequisites, which are not critical for an agent to invoke the tool correctly with a valid ST13.

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%, and the description compensates by explaining st13 as an ST13-Kennung with a concrete example (AT501972000001736). This adds real meaning beyond the bare string type in the schema, though it could describe the ST13 format more formally.

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 names a specific verb-resource pair ('Vollauszug einer Marke aus TMview') and the lookup key (ST13-Kennung), and lists the returned record components. It distinguishes itself from search and EU-get siblings by the TMview scope and ST13 identifier, though it does not explicitly name a sibling for contrast.

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 use case is implied: call this tool when you have a specific ST13 identifier and want the full TMview record. There is no explicit statement about when not to use it or which alternative (e.g., tmview_search, eutm_get) to prefer, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name and sibling context.

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