legal_tm_clearance_search

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions routing through a domain-agent dispatcher and scope, but it does not state whether the tool is read-only or has side effects, nor does it describe idempotency or error behavior. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 short but wastes the first sentence on a tautology. The routing info and parameter list are appropriately structured. It is concise, but the brevity sacrifices critical content, earning a middle score.

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?

Despite the presence of an output schema (undisclosed in description), the tool is a search action that requires context (trademark clearance) which is entirely missing. The description does not explain what the search does, what constitutes valid inputs, or what the output represents, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 clarifies that 'message' is a free-text objective and 'inputs' is an optional JSON string, but lacks details on expected formats, constraints, or examples. The agent receives only minimal guidance beyond the schema itself.

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 merely restates the tool name ('Run the legal domain agent action `tm_clearance_search`') without explaining what a trademark clearance search entails. It fails to differentiate from other legal tools or provide a clear, specific purpose.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or when not to use it, leaving the agent without selection criteria.

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