inapi_evaluar_marca

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the evaluation is 'preliminary,' which is useful behavioral context, but does not mention authentication, rate limits, or what happens on error. It does not contradict the annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It efficiently conveys the purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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's simplicity (2 parameters, one required), full schema coverage, and annotations covering safety, the description is mostly complete. It states the purpose and preliminary nature, but it does not explain return values (no output schema exists) or any limitations, leaving a minor gap.

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 fully documents both parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline score of 3 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 states a specific verb ('Evalúa preliminarmente') and resource ('viabilidad y distintividad de una marca comercial') with the context of the Nice Classification and INAPI. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling inapi_cease_and_desist or other legal tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, with no when-to-use conditions, prerequisites, or named alternatives. This matches the calibration for a description with no usage guidance.

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