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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the description's job is narrower. It adds real context the annotations cannot: what the result set contains and a scope disclaimer that prevents the agent from presenting output as clearance. Pagination, rate limits, and result ordering are not addressed, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose question and the return payload, then the disclaimer, then the sibling routing. The clause about optional filters narrowing or ranking is the only low-value sentence, and the rhetorical question opener, while effective, is slightly informal for a tool description.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields, including the results URL. Combined with complete parameter documentation in the schema and full annotations, an agent has everything needed to select and call this tool correctly given its complexity.

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%, and the schema already tells the agent to leave each filter unset for a conflict check, which is the key semantic. The description only adds the generic line that optional filters 'can narrow or rank the search,' which is weaker than the per-parameter schema text and does not explain the mode enum or include_dead behavior. 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?

It poses a specific question of a specific resource ('Could this business name conflict with a federal trademark?') and enumerates the return payload (matching marks, status, classes, owner, record links, register date, results URL). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling check_business_name, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

It states the use case (a conflict screen), the exclusions ('not legal advice and not trademark clearance'), and names the alternative with the condition that selects it ('Use check_business_name instead for a complete name check'). This is explicit when/when-not/alternative guidance.

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