trademark_registration

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds regulatory context beyond annotations: the authority is MOET and Cabinet Resolution 102 of 2025 introduced new fees with a 50% SME reduction, which helps the agent explain fee differences. It does not cover rate limits or auth needs, but for a static read-only info tool that is reasonable.

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?

Front-loads the core action in the first sentence, then uses the second paragraph for relevant regulatory context. No wasted words; the structure aids scanning.

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 simple read-only knowledge tool with full schema descriptions, clear annotations, and an output schema, the description supplies the essential purpose and regulatory context. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds material meaning beyond the schema for the is_sme parameter by explaining that qualifying SMEs receive a 50% fee reduction, though it does not add meaning for the expedited parameter.

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?

States a specific verb ('Return'), resource ('UAE trademark registration'), and scope ('steps, fees, and timeline'). Although it does not name a sibling, the narrow trademark-registration focus implicitly separates it from broader siblings like ip_protection.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose statement, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and does not name alternatives (e.g., ip_protection) for broader IP questions. The regulatory context helps interpret the result but does not route the agent among tools.

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