swiss_ip_search_trademarks

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context like pagination (page_token, next_page_token), result order (sort_descending), and wildcard support. This enriches the agent's understanding beyond 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 well-structured with a use_case tag, parameter list, and return description. It is concise and front-loaded, though the mix of German and English and minor formatting (e.g., 'Enthält:' capitalization) slightly reduce clarity.

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 read-only search tool with an output schema, the description adequately explains inputs and return structure (source, total, count, results, next_page_token). It could be more complete by detailing the meaning of 'source' or 'total,' but overall it covers essential operational context.

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?

Despite a stated 0% schema description coverage, the description comprehensively explains all parameters: query (with examples like 'Zürich*', 'apple'), page_size (range 1-50, default 10), page_token (pagination token), and sort_descending (default True). It provides clear semantics and usage details, fully compensating for the schema gap.

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 searches the Swiss trademark register via free text, using phrases like 'Durchsucht das Schweizer Markenregister nach Freitext' and 'Findet Marken nach Name, Markenbegriff oder Stichwort.' It is specific and uses a strong verb+resource structure, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like class or owner searches.

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 description provides context with a <use_case> tag ('Markenrecherche / Brand-Monitoring per Name, Wort oder Stichwort') and mentions wildcard support. However, it does not specify when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives, such as searching by class or owner, which are available as siblings.

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