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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses the cost model, that failed runs are free, and that repeat calls for the same holder inside 30 minutes are served from cache with reused: true. It reconciles the destructiveHint=true / readOnlyHint=false annotations by naming the resource actually consumed (one credit) and closes with a candid 'check, not register fact' caveat about AI-authored sourcing.

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-loads what the tool produces before covering cost, caching, and the reliability caveat, and each sentence does work. The middle credit sentence is dense with parenthetical details, but nothing is padding.

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?

With no output schema the description still sketches the dossier's contents, cost, auth prerequisite, and cache behavior, which is most of what an agent needs. Left unstated are error/retry behavior, what happens with ambiguous or unknown holders, and whether the dossier persists server-side (relevant given the sibling holder_read).

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?

One parameter at 0% schema coverage, so the description must carry it. It implies 'name' means the trademark holder being researched and that matching is holder-scoped ('same holder'), but gives no guidance on accepted forms (legal entity vs. brand name, aliases, partial matches) or how duplicates are resolved.

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 ('Research a trademark holder on the open web') and enumerates exactly what the returned dossier contains (identity type, notable activity/disputes, red flags). That output specificity implicitly separates it from the read-style sibling holder_read, but no sibling is ever named, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Gives clear call context: it requires a signed-in session and it burns a credit, with the charge order (included before purchased) spelled out. It does not, however, say when a holder should be researched here versus simply read via holder_read, nor warn about ambiguous holder names.

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