assess_similarity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full burden. It mentions 'reference assessment' and 'not a guarantee', and briefly covers risk levels, but lacks disclosure on behavioral traits like rate limits, authorization, or error behavior.

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 a single sentence that conveys key information (purpose, risk levels, caveat, pricing tier). However, the use of Russian may limit accessibility for non-Russian agents; structure is otherwise efficient.

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 an output schema (unknown contents), the description minimally covers what it does and what it returns (risk levels). However, it lacks detail on the meaning of risk levels or the comparison dimensions (phonetic/graphic/semantic) and how they relate to output.

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 coverage is 100% (all parameters have descriptions). The description adds minor context beyond schema (e.g., phonetic/graphic/semantic), but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the existing schema descriptions.

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 assesses similarity for confusion (phonetic/graphic/semantic) and outputs risk levels. It distinguishes from siblings (get_trademark_status, search_tmview, search_trademark) which handle status and general searching, not similarity.

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 the tool is for similarity assessment but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor any conditions or exclusions.

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