search_trademark

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions a 'Pro tariff', implying potential cost or access restrictions, but does not detail authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects. The core search behavior is clear, but transparency is minimal.

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 efficiently conveys the core purpose. However, it includes the phrase 'Тариф Pro' (Pro tariff), which may be superfluous and not immediately relevant for tool invocation, slightly reducing conciseness.

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 4 parameters, the presence of an output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately covers the main function but lacks completeness. Missing details include when to prefer this over sibling tools, output format summary, and any prerequisites or limitations, leaving gaps for an AI agent.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with each parameter (query, limit, classes, status_filter) documented clearly. The description adds context about the registry (FIPS/Rospatent) but does not enhance parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 that the tool searches for identical or similar trademarks/applications by word designation from the FIPS/Rospatent registry, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like search_tmview, which may have similar functionality, so it scores 4 rather than 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as assess_similarity, get_trademark_status, or search_tmview. No exclusions or context for preferred usage are given, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name and registry mention.

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