get_trademark_class_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return structure ('Class title, type (goods/services), and description') and the read-only nature implied by 'Look up'. However, it does not mention any potential limitations, edge cases, or data source specifics, which would fully satisfy transparency.

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 concise and well-structured with clear sections ('USE THIS TOOL WHEN', 'Args', 'Returns'). Every sentence provides relevant information without fluff, making it easy to parse and act upon.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (single parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, when to use, parameter semantics, and return values. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema only provides 'class_number' with type string and no description, so schema description coverage is 0%. The description compensates excellently by explaining the parameter's meaning, range (1-45), and providing specific examples ('9' for computer software, '25' for clothing, '42' for software services).

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's purpose: 'Look up a Nice/international trademark class (1-45).' It uses a specific verb ('look up') and resource ('trademark class'), and further distinguishes it from sibling tools by specifying it covers goods/services classes and is used for clearance 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 explicitly provides an 'USE THIS TOOL WHEN' section, listing concrete scenarios: knowing what goods or services a class covers, and picking classes for a clearance search. This gives clear guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives in the trademark domain.

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