tsdr_get_trademark_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: the API-key requirement and the exactly-one-of constraint on the two identifiers. It does not cover error behavior, throttling, or data freshness beyond 'live'.

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 imperative sentence followed by a usage block, the exclusivity constraint, and clearly labeled Args/Returns sections. No sentence is redundant; each line adds an actionable constraint or format detail.

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 two-parameter read-only lookup with rich annotations and no output schema, the definition covers purpose, trigger, auth, input format, and input constraint adequately. The Returns section is thin ('Normalized response with the trademark status record'), but the missing field detail is largely recoverable from the field list in the usage block.

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 0% and both params are nullable with no required flag, so the description carries the full burden — and it delivers: it documents each identifier with format hints ('8-digit application serial number'), worked examples, and the critical exclusivity rule that exactly one must be supplied. That rule is invisible in the schema and would otherwise cause wrong calls.

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 ('Get current status of a trademark application or registration') and names the source system (TSDR). It positions itself as the 'official USPTO status source,' which implies differentiation from search-oriented siblings, but never explicitly names an alternative like tm_get_trademark or tsdr_get_trademark_image.

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 'USE THIS TOOL WHEN' block gives clear triggering context — you hold a serial or registration number and need authoritative live status, owner, classes, or prosecution stage. It also flags the API-key requirement. However, there is no 'when not to use' or explicit routing to sibling tools when the need is an image, search, or document list.

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