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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals data limitations (applicant names only for organisations, addresses reduced to country, mark images never stored), data retention (rolling 52 issues), cost (1 credit), and query semantics. It omits details like pagination behavior or response structure, but still gives substantial transparency.

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 long but information-dense, covering purpose, data fields, retention, limitations, filter semantics, and cost in a compact format. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids redundancy, though it could be slightly more structured with parameter names.

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 23 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is not complete enough for an agent to correctly invoke all filters. It fails to explain individual parameter semantics, valid values, or how to combine them beyond 'AND'. The data coverage and cost are helpful, but the tool's complexity demands more explicit parameter documentation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists many data fields (application number, mark text, classes, etc.) but never maps them to parameter names or explains formats for filters like 'section', 'origin', or 'classes'. Only 'q' and the AND behavior are explicitly described, leaving most of the 23 parameters ambiguous.

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 identifies the tool as a query for UK trade mark applications published in the IPO's weekly Trade Marks Journal, listing the specific fields returned. It also distinguishes this from the sibling change feed by noting that 'the change feed lists each week's new publications.'

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 explains filter behavior ('Filters combine with AND; q searches all text fields') and points to the change feed for week-by-week updates, giving a clear alternative. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, but the domain-specific purpose makes the usage context clear.

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