get_trademark_status_code

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It specifies that the tool returns a 'Status code description and prosecution stage,' which reveals the output behavior. The verb 'Look up' implies a read-only operation, and the examples clarify the input format. It does not mention error handling or side effects, but for a simple lookup this is sufficient 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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, when-to-use, args, returns) and no wasted words. The 'USE THIS TOOL WHEN' header is prominent, and the entire description is compact while containing all essential information.

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?

For a single-parameter lookup tool with an output schema, the description covers all necessary context: purpose, usage scenario, parameter explanation, and return value. It is self-contained and gives the agent enough to correctly select and invoke the tool.

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 schema only defines 'code' as a string, with no description. The tool description compensates fully by explaining 'code: Trademark status code (e.g., "700")' and providing concrete examples. This gives the agent both the meaning and a format hint, adding significant value beyond the schema.

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 USPTO trademark status code meaning.' This is a specific verb ('look up') and resource ('USPTO trademark status code'), with concrete examples ('700' = Registered, '686' = Published for opposition) that make the function immediately understandable. It differentiates from siblings by explicitly scoping to trademark status codes, even though sibling tools like 'get_status_code' exist.

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 provides an explicit 'USE THIS TOOL WHEN' section with a concrete scenario: 'Trademark data contains a numeric status code you need to interpret.' This gives clear context for when to invoke the tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or explicitly name alternative tools, so it stops short of the full 5.

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