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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description adds valuable behavioral context: it notes the tool is 'informational only and does not read or change any formation' and that 'a partial failure still returns useful results for the side that succeeded.' This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent set expectations.

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 two sentences: first the purpose, then usage and behavior. It is front-loaded, concise, and every sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy.

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?

Given the simple input (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and edge-case behavior (partial failure). It provides enough context for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it correctly.

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 schema only defines 'name' with min/max length, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description clarifies that 'name' is the 'proposed company or brand name' to check, thus adding semantic meaning. It could have been more explicit about the parameter's role, but it is sufficient given the single simple parameter.

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 states the tool's function: it checks whether a proposed company or brand name is available as a US trademark and as a domain across specific TLDs. This is a specific verb-resource pair that clearly distinguishes it from siblings like formation_check_name, which likely checks state registrations.

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 explicitly says to 'Call this whenever the user proposes or evaluates a name,' which is clear usage guidance. However, it does not mention when not to use it or contrast it with alternatives like formation_check_name, so it misses the full 'when-not/alternatives' criterion for a 5.

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