search_trademarks

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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, open-world call, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful context that data comes from an external government registry (IP Australia), but says nothing about the api_key parameter's necessity, rate limits, pagination, or result volume — gaps that matter for an open-world external API.

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, which is structurally sound. It is arguably too terse given the undocumented parameters, but conciseness itself is good.

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 an external open-world API with four undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description is materially incomplete. An agent cannot tell what 'type' or 'status' accept, whether api_key is mandatory, or even roughly what a result record contains.

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 0% across four parameters, so the description carries the full burden and fails to pay it. Only 'query' is weakly implied by the word 'search'; 'type', 'status', and 'api_key' are completely unexplained — no value formats, no valid status values, no indication of whether the key is required or how to obtain it.

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 and resource ('Search Australian trademarks') and names the data source ('via IP Australia'), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling get_trademark_details. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with other search tools (search_patents, domain_search_listings), so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 versus get_trademark_details, search_patents, or the ABN/domain search tools, and no prerequisites such as whether an API key is needed. The only implicit signal is that a 'query' is required.

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