tm_search_assignments

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 discloses the data source (USPTO Assignment Center public API, no API key required), date coverage (1955 to present), filtering behavior (multiple filters combine AND, at least one required), and return content. This provides solid transparency, though it does not mention potential error conditions or rate limits.

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 headings (purpose, use case, args, returns). It is concise, with every sentence adding value. The use-case block is upfront, and the parameter list is necessary given the lack of schema descriptions. No fluff or redundancy.

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 has 7 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description provides all necessary context: when to use, data source, coverage, filter logic, pagination parameters, and a summary of return fields. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly without additional documentation.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. The Args section clearly explains all 7 parameters with meanings (e.g., serial_number as 'Trademark application serial number'), gives an example for reel_frame ('9006/0093'), and states defaults for offset and limit. It also explains that filters combine with AND, which is not in the schema. This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Search recorded trademark assignment (ownership transfer) records.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like tm_search_trademarks (search trademarks) and tm_get_trademark (get single trademark) by focusing on ownership transfer records. The 'USE THIS TOOL WHEN' section further clarifies the exact use cases.

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 states when to use the tool: 'trace ownership history of a trademark, find the current owner, or find marks transferred to/from a company.' It also provides context like the date range and that at least one filter is required with AND logic. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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