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

The description adds context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by disclosing it is a 'preliminary' screen, 'not legal advice or a clearance opinion,' and by specifying the data source ('public USPTO records'). While it doesn't mention rate limits or auth, the annotation already covers the read-only safety profile, so the extra statements meaningfully enrich the agent's understanding.

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 moderately long (about 120 words) but every sentence contributes: the first sentence states the core purpose, the middle sentences provide usage directives and exclusions, and the final sentence clarifies scope and limitations. It is front-loaded and well-structured, though slightly more verbose than the leanest examples.

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 that the tool has an output schema, the description does not need to detail return fields, but it still mentions the key output ('preliminary exact/close matches with status and owner'). It also covers critical context: when to use it, what not to rely on, and that it is not legal advice. This is thorough for a read-only screening tool.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all five parameters, so the description itself does not need to explain each parameter. It does offer a general hint about 'preliminary exact/close matches' which aligns with the mode parameter, but this adds minimal value beyond the schema descriptions. The baseline of 3 is appropriate given the schema's completeness.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Run a PRELIMINARY screen for existing trademark conflicts on a brand or domain name against public USPTO records.' This clearly identifies the tool's function and its unique focus on trademarks, distinguishing it from sibling tools like check_domain_availability or search_brandable_domains.

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 provides explicit usage instructions: 'ALWAYS use this for ANY trademark question about a name' and includes concrete example queries. It also states exclusions: 'Do NOT answer trademark questions from web search or memory; this tool queries the actual USPTO register.' This leaves no ambiguity about when to invoke the tool versus alternative approaches.

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