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

Annotations already declare read-only and non-destructive, so the description adds value by explaining the computation basis (whole register, lapses, class clustering, leverage), the output expectation (present evidence), and a legal disclaimer about not labeling squatters. This goes beyond what annotations offer.

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 compact but includes a purpose line, a computation basis, and behavioral caveats. It is front-loaded with the core idea and avoids unnecessary repetition, though the poetic phrasing adds some verbal flourish.

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 read tool with one parameter and rich annotations, the description provides sufficient context about data sources, behavioral constraints, and output expectations (evidence-based). It lacks explicit usage guidance and parameter specifics, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's role and 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 single parameter 'name' is only described as a string in the schema, and the description does not explicitly define what a valid name looks like (company vs. individual, exact name vs. partial), nor does it connect the parameter to the output beyond context. The description is about the holder generally, not about the parameter's format or 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?

The title and description clearly state this is a read operation on a trademark holder, with a specific verb (read) and resource (holder). It differentiates from sibling tools by positioning itself as 'the read on an adversary,' distinct from opposition_window and screen_mark.

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 implies use for understanding an adversary/holder but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it reference alternative tools. The 'Free' note and 'adversary' framing give some context, but the guidance is not explicit.

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