Tmview Search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does explain the output shape ('Liefert Kurzdaten je Treffer mit ST13-Kennung'), the supported search modes, and the underlying source (tmdn.org). It does not mention rate limits, errors, or the read-only nature of the operation, leaving some behavioral aspects implicit.

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 relatively compact, and it front-loads the core purpose before parameter details. The examples for 'aemter' and the enumeration of 'modus' modes earn their place. It is slightly run-on and mixes languages, but it stays close to the essential 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 six parameters, zero schema-level descriptions, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It covers the general workflow and the two most important parameters, but leaves multiple parameters and edge-case behavior unaddressed. An agent could misinvoke it by misunderstanding 'zeichen' or 'klassen'.

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 'aemter' and 'modus' in some detail, but the required parameter 'zeichen' is not described, and 'klassen', 'nur_lebend', and 'max_treffer' receive no semantic explanation. The parameter names hint at their meaning, but the description does not provide the needed precision for correct invocation.

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 operation — 'Einzelabfrage in TMview (tmdn.org)' — and scopes it to national registers and WIPO. It also distinguishes itself from tmview_get by noting it returns short data with an ST13 identifier for later detail retrieval, and from recherche_lauf by directing full searches elsewhere.

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 context: this is a single-query TMview search for national and WIPO registers. It explicitly names recherche_lauf for the full search alternative and mentions tmview_get for subsequent detail retrieval. However, it does not explicitly exclude other siblings like eutm_search or state when not to use the tool.

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