Fiche complète d'une marque

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the data provenance (official INPI notice) and the depth of what is returned, including the complete history of inscriptions such as assignments, name changes, partial surrenders and post-limitation wordings. It does not say what happens for an unknown or malformed number, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and provenance, then a dense enumeration of returned fields. The field list is long but each item earns its place because there is no output schema to convey the payload shape. Slightly list-heavy but free of 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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return payload and does so thoroughly, enumerating every field family an agent could need. The remaining gap is error behavior for invalid or unknown numbers, which matters for a lookup tool but is minor against the otherwise complete picture.

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?

There is a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, and the schema itself already explains the prefix conventions (FR4020655, EU019023157, WO1234567, and that bare 7 digits default to FR). The description adds no format, validation or resolution detail beyond that, so the 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+resource: fetching the complete record of a trademark from the official INPI notice, and enumerates the exact content domains (name, type, status, dates, holder, Vienna codes, BOPI publications, full inscription history). The resource noun 'marque' cleanly separates it from sibling fiche_brevet and fiche_modele, so an agent can route without opening the 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?

Usage is only implied: the required 'numero' parameter signals this is a lookup-by-identifier tool, and 'd'après la notice officielle de l'INPI' implies an authoritative single-record fetch. The description never says when to prefer it over rechercher_marques, nor that a number must first be obtained via search, and gives no exclusions.

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