Run heuristic checks on a term or second-level domain to distinguish generic category words from high-risk corporate trademark violations.
Runs heuristic checks to distinguish generic category terms from high-risk corporate trademark violations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| term | Yes | The term or SLD to screen (e.g. gulfcoastenergy vs subsearecovery) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. Saying 'heuristic checks' usefully signals approximate, non-authoritative results, which is genuine behavioral context. But it omits what the check returns, whether it is a binary risk flag or a scored judgment, permission requirements, and how 'high-risk' is determined.
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?
A single sentence with no filler, and the core purpose is stated up front. Nothing could be trimmed without losing meaning.
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 screening tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain what the heuristic produces and how its output should be interpreted. It also fails to position the tool against its only sibling, leaving the agent to guess at invocation context.
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 single parameter is documented with clarifying examples (gulfcoastenergy vs subsearecovery). The description adds no further semantics 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?
The description gives a clear verb and outcome: 'Runs heuristic checks to distinguish generic category terms from high-risk corporate trademark violations.' An agent understands the resource (a term/SLD) and the classification decision being made. However, it does not differentiate this tool from its sibling evaluate_brand_quality, leaving ambiguity about which to pick.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus evaluate_brand_quality, nor any stated preconditions or exclusions. The name implies a screening context, but the description never says when this check is warranted over the sibling's brand-quality evaluation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.