swiss_ip_get_trademark

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. Description adds that lookup is exact and returns match_type='none' on failure, which is mild additional context. No contradictions.

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?

Description is concise (5 sentences) with structured sections (use_case, important_notes). No fluff, front-loaded with key action.

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 single parameter, good annotations, and existing output schema, the description covers the retrieval behavior, return overview, and exact matching. Complete for a simple lookup tool.

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 already provides a description for trademark_number with examples. Description repeats the parameter with an example, adding marginal value. With 0% schema_description_coverage metric, the parameter is actually documented in schema, so baseline is 3.

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 the tool retrieves a specific Swiss trademark by application/registration number. It distinguishes from sibling tools which are search-oriented or for patents.

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?

Provides explicit use case ('Detail-Abruf einer Marke per Anmelde-/Registernummer') and notes exact lookup behavior with match_type='none' for unknown numbers. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternative tools.

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