tsdr_get_trademark_status

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 API key requirement and the 'Normalized response' format, which is useful context. However, it does not mention error behaviors, rate limits, or confirm read-only status explicitly. For a read operation, this is adequate but not rich.

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 (USE THIS TOOL WHEN, Args, Returns) and is concise without unnecessary words. Every section adds value for an agent deciding to use the tool.

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 simplicity (two parameters) and the presence of an output schema that presumably defines the response structure, the description covers essential selection criteria, input constraints, and usage context. The API key requirement and authoritative source are noted, making it complete enough for correct invocation.

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 no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description compensates effectively by providing format examples for both parameters and the crucial 'exactly one required' constraint. This adds meaningful semantic information beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't explain how to obtain the numbers or handle edge cases.

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?

Clearly states it retrieves current status from TSDR with a specific verb ('Get') and detailed resource ('status of a trademark application or registration'). The description lists the information fields returned (mark text, owner, classes, dates, prosecution stage) and is distinguishable from sibling tools like tsdr_list_trademark_documents by focusing on status.

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?

Provides an explicit 'USE THIS TOOL WHEN' section clarifying the intended use case and required input identifiers (serial or registration number). It also explains the 'exactly one' constraint. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or clearly name alternative tools, so it stops short of a full 5.

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