Buscar marca por texto (exata ou radical)

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

Annotations already declare this as a safe, idempotent, non-destructive open-world read, so the safety bar is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: the data source is official INPI/pePI and results mirror the official site's 'Marca' tab, which sets expectations about provenance and result parity. It does not cover caching, rate limits or pagination behavior in the prose (those live only in the schema).

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?

Two tight paragraphs: the first front-loads purpose plus search-mode and filter semantics, the second handles when-to-use and routing to the sibling. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

With six parameters fully documented, complete annotations, and an explicit alternative-tool route, the definition is nearly self-sufficient. The main gap is that no output schema exists and the description only hints at return contents ('titulares'), leaving the result shape partly unspecified.

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 both the exact/radical toggle and the Nice classification filter are already fully documented in the schema. The description restates search-mode and filter semantics but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides — baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Busca marcas no pePI ... pelo texto da marca') and names the distinguishing scope (exact vs radical, optional Nice filter). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling inpi_search_by_mark_advanced, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema.

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?

Gives a concrete use case ('descobrir se um nome já está registrado e quem são os titulares') and names the alternative with the condition that selects it (advanced presentation/nature/boolean searches → inpi_search_by_mark_advanced). Nothing is left to inference.

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