Search EUIPO trademarks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does an excellent job: it discloses the shared quota system (daily, burst, fair-share, provider-cooldown), the meaning of a 429 response, the permission requirement (naming:read), and the caveat that results are not a legal verdict. This is rich behavioral context beyond merely stating the operation.

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?

Three sentences with no wasted words: the first states the core function, the second covers quota behavior, and the third covers permissions and result caveats. Information is front-loaded and each sentence earns its place.

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 tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides solid context: purpose, constraints, quota, permissions, and result interpretation. It doesn't describe the return format, but for a search tool with no output schema, the description is quite complete. Minor gap is lack of pagination or response shape details.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond what's in the schema, only reinforcing the optionality of Nice classes and the 'owned naming candidate' context. This aligns with the baseline score of 3 when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states the tool's specific action: 'Screen one owned naming candidate against EUIPO's verbal-element register' with optional Nice class filtering, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_name_evidence and check_domains. The verb 'screen' and the resource (EUIPO verbal-element register) make the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies when to use the tool (when you have a naming candidate to check against EUIPO) and sets expectations about results being preliminary evidence. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide exclusion criteria, so it falls short of a 5 but provides clear context.

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