Trademark, patent or design

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

Annotations already declare the operation is read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world. The description adds useful context about what registration details are returned (numbers, date, owner, description), but does not add behavioral details such as error behavior 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 a single compact sentence that front-loads the resource and lists key returned fields without waste. It is appropriately sized, though it functions more as a label than a full instruction.

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 two-parameter read-only lookup, the definition is largely complete: the schema covers both parameters and where ip_id comes from, annotations cover safety, and the description names the returned fields. The main missing piece is explicit usage routing relative to rs_search.

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%, and the schema already explains ip_id's source and the kind enum values. The description's mention of trademark, patent, and industrial design loosely maps to kind but adds no syntax or usage meaning beyond the schema.

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 clearly identifies the resource as Iranian trademark, patent, or industrial design registration details and lists the record contents. It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling search/person/company tools, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. It implies this is a detail lookup, but does not say to use rs_search first to obtain an ip_id or when to choose this over sibling tools.

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