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

Annotations only include openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, with no readOnlyHint. The description's 'opens' does not clarify whether this is a mutating action (starting a new draft) or a read (opening an existing draft). Since annotations don't cover the mutation/read distinction, the description should clarify, but it leaves the agent uncertain about side effects.

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 sentence with no superfluous words. It's concise and front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to scan.

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 wide range of trademark sibling tools, the description fails to explain the role of this tool in the trademark application workflow. It doesn't mention that this likely initiates the application process, nor does it indicate what happens after calling it. An output schema exists, so return format isn't needed, but the operational context is missing.

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% for companyId, described as 'UUID value wrapper.' The description adds 'for a company,' which hints that companyId identifies the company, but it doesn't explicitly connect the parameter to the description. This is a marginal addition, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses 'opens a draft application,' which is ambiguous – it could mean creating a new draft or retrieving an existing one. The name 'start' suggests creation, but the description doesn't confirm this or mention 'trademark' explicitly. It distinguishes from siblings only by the word 'start,' but the verb 'opens' is vague.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus related trademark tools like trademark_get_application, trademark_delete_application, or trademark_set_mark. The description doesn't indicate this is the entry point for a new trademark application or explain prerequisites or subsequent steps.

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