Buscar marcas por titular (CNPJ/CPF ou nome)

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond them: the two-stage name search that must be re-invoked with a 'pos' value, plus the fact that the real pePI enforces this flow with no workaround. Minor gaps remain (e.g. no explicit discussion of pagination across the 6h cache beyond what the schema says).

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?

Three short paragraphs, front-loaded with what the tool does, then the critical two-step caveat, then use cases. Every sentence contributes; only the due-diligence sentence is arguably optional color.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey return behavior — and it does, describing the candidate-owner list with 'pos' numbers before detail retrieval. Together with the annotations this is enough to call the tool correctly, though a note on how results are paginated/limited would make it fully self-contained.

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 parameters are already documented. The description nonetheless adds real semantic value by explaining the stateful relationship between 'nome' and 'pos' across two calls, which is the most error-prone part of invocation and is only tersely captured in the schema field text.

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: it lists registered trademarks belonging to an owner, retrievable by CNPJ/CPF or by name. The 'por titular' framing implicitly separates it from the name-based sibling searches, but no sibling is named explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 clear operating context: CNPJ/CPF search is direct, while name search requires a two-step flow with no shortcut, and it names concrete scenarios (M&A due diligence, checking a client's prior registrations). It does not tell the agent when to prefer inpi_search_by_mark or inpi_get_process_detail instead, so routing is left implicit.

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