Buscar marcas figurativas por código de Viena

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

Annotations already fully cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: multiple viena fields combine as an AND filter that narrows rather than refines, and it directs the agent to gather the code externally before calling.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, followed by the AND-semantics caveat and the code-lookup prerequisite. It runs to three short paragraphs and every sentence carries weight, though slightly more text than strictly necessary for a search 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?

Purpose, usage, retrieval guidance and parameter interpretation are all covered, and pagination is handled by the resultados_por_pagina enum plus the inpi_next_page sibling. The one gap is that, with no output schema, the description never characterizes the shape of returned results.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents each field. The description adds interpretive value by clarifying that viena_1/2/3 are complete codes, that stacking them is an intersection (not increased precision), and by pointing to the authoritative Vienna table.

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 (busca) and resource (marcas figurativas/mistas no pePI) qualified by the Vienna Code, and explicitly contrasts itself with text-based search ('não de texto'), which cleanly separates it from inpi_search_by_mark/mark_advanced.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it ('checando colidência de logotipo/elemento gráfico') and when not (text search), plus operational advice to use only viena_1 when unsure and to consult the official Vienna table before querying if the code is unknown.

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