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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a read, and the description lists returned design fields, but it does not explicitly state read-only safety, permission requirements, or rate limits. The implied read-only nature and return summary justify a 3, not higher.

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?

Three short sentences/paragraphs, front-loaded with purpose then usage then returns. No filler; appropriately sized.

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 simple single-parameter getter with a full input schema and an output schema, the description supplies purpose, prerequisite, and return summary. Nothing critical is missing 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and already documents file_id with source and example. The description repeats the source as search_designs, adding only the specific sibling tool name; this is marginal over schema, so baseline 3.

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?

Specific verb 'Get detailed information' and resource 'design application'; distinguishes from search_designs by requiring a specific file ID and from sibling get_*_details by resource. An agent can identify it without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent from search_designs to this tool via the fileId, establishing a clear retrieval workflow. It lacks explicit when-not-use or alternative selection guidance, so a 4 rather than 5.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get' plus the enumerated return fields imply a read-only lookup, and the field list gives a sense of what is returned, but there is no mention of error behavior, authentication, or whether a not-found case is handled. It 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?

Two short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the returned fields following. It is efficient, though enumerating return fields borders on redundant given an output schema exists.

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?

Because an output schema exists, the description needn't explain return values, and the required identifier is covered by the schema. The main gap is the absence of annotation coverage for the read-only/safety profile and of any usage routing, but the essentials for calling it correctly are present.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single parameter (application_number), so the schema already documents the input fully. The description adds no format, example, or syntactic detail about the application number beyond what the schema states, making the baseline of 3 appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific patent application'), making the retrieval-by-identifier intent clear. It implicitly contrasts with search_patents by specifying a single application, but never names the alternative explicitly, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is for fetching full details once a patent application number is known. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over search_patents, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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

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 never states that this is a read-only lookup, what happens for an unknown/invalid application number, or any permission requirements; the field list it does give largely duplicates the output schema.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the return contents; no filler. The second sentence is arguably redundant with the output schema, which keeps it from a 5.

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-required-parameter lookup with a fully documented schema and an output schema, the description covers purpose and return contents adequately. The missing piece is routing guidance relative to search_trademarks, and the absence of annotations leaves the read-only nature unstated.

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?

There is only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema itself supplying example formats ('T/01853', '2020/12345'). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 detailed information about a specific trademark application') and the word 'specific' implicitly contrasts with the lookup-free sibling search_trademarks. It never names the sibling, but the single-record vs. search split is inferable from the sibling names alone.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is for when it already has an application number, and search_trademarks is presumably for when it does not. No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative is given.

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

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the read-only nature implicitly ('Search', 'Returns matching designs') and lists what comes back, but says nothing about authentication needs, result caps beyond the schema's limit, or whether matching is exact vs. substring.

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 purpose sentence followed by a compact return-value list and three short, non-redundant call examples. Every element earns its place with no filler.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be spelled out, and all 8 parameters are schema-documented. A read-only, zero-required-parameter search tool is adequately covered, though a line about result pagination behavior or the absence of an exact-match mode would make it fully self-sufficient.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters, including defaults and ranges. The description's examples add narrow value by demonstrating three parameter usages, but no semantics beyond the schema (e.g., matching behavior, Locarno format) are provided. Baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource with clear scope: searching industrial designs registered in Turkey on TURKPATENT, and enumerates the returned fields. It is implicitly distinguishable from get_design_details (search vs. single-record retrieval), but it never explicitly contrasts itself with that sibling.

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 three usage examples show how to query by design_name, applicant, and locarno_class, which implies the main lookup modes. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this tool over get_design_details, no note that all parameters are combinable, and no statement about when not to use it.

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

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 (TURKPATENT/Turkey) and the returned fields, which is useful, but 'Search' only implies a read-only operation without stating it, and there is no mention of pagination defaults, rate limits, or authentication requirements despite limit/offset parameters existing.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by return fields and then a compact examples block. Every element is relevant, though the examples section could be considered slightly verbose given the schema already names the fields.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return fields need not be fully spelled out, and all ten parameters are schema-documented. The main gap is the absence of routing guidance against get_patent_details and any behavioral notes for a no-annotation tool, but overall it is complete enough to invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all ten parameters, making the baseline 3 appropriate. The examples add marginal value by demonstrating realistic values for title, applicant, and ipc_class, but they don't cover the other seven parameters or clarify filter-combination behavior.

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 and resource with scope ('Search patents registered in Turkey on TURKPATENT'), which clearly separates it from search_trademarks and search_designs by resource. However, it never explicitly distinguishes itself from the get_patent_details sibling (search vs. retrieve a specific patent), so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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 three examples imply how to use the tool (search by title, applicant, or IPC class), giving implied usage context. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance, no mention of when to prefer get_patent_details for a known application number, and no statement about combining filters.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden; it establishes this is a read/list operation and names the response fields, which is genuine behavioral context. However it says nothing about authentication, rate limits, or whether at least one filter is required, and pagination semantics are left entirely to the schema.

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 purpose sentence, a compact return-value list, and three examples – every line earns its place with no filler. Structure makes the tool scannable in one pass.

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 seven-parameter search tool with an output schema present, the definition covers purpose, returns, and query patterns adequately. The remaining gap is the absence of guidance on how this search relates to get_trademark_details or whether any filter is mandatory.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The examples go beyond the schema by showing how parameters combine (trademark_name with comma-separated nice_classes, holder_name alone), which clarifies real query patterns the schema alone does not illustrate.

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 (Search) plus resource (trademarks) and scope (registered in Turkey on TURKPATENT), which cleanly separates it from search_patents and search_designs among the siblings. It also enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what it gets.

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 three examples demonstrate concrete use contexts (name-only, name plus Nice classes, holder-only), which implicitly tells the agent when each parameter combination applies. It stops short of naming the alternative (get_trademark_details) or stating exclusions, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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