search_trademarks

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.