inapi_evaluar_marca

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully signals that the result is preliminary rather than binding, but says nothing about whether the call is read-only, whether it accesses live INAPI records, latency, or what the returned assessment contains.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every phrase (preliminar, viabilidad, distintividad, Niza, INAPI) contributes to scoping the tool.

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?

For a small two-parameter tool this is nearly adequate, but with no output schema the description should at least indicate what the preliminary evaluation returns (e.g., a viability/distinctiveness signal) and how class selection affects it. The absence of that leaves a gap an agent cannot fill from structured data.

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% (both clase_niza and marca_propuesta are documented, including a default and examples for the Niza class). The description adds nothing about parameter meaning, so baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb (evalúa), resource (marca comercial), and scope qualifiers (preliminarmente, viabilidad y distintividad, Clasificador de Niza, ante INAPI). This is enough for an agent to distinguish it from the only nearby sibling, inapi_cease_and_desist, which is an enforcement action rather than an evaluative search.

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 word 'preliminarmente' implies this is an initial screening rather than a definitive filing or legal opinion, which hints at when to use it. However, the description never states when NOT to use it, what prerequisites exist (e.g., must a Niza class be chosen first), or what to do if a definitive registration step is needed.

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