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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context by explaining that it combines two signals (domain and trademark) and that it returns a recommendation tier, which gives the agent a clear behavioral model without needing to invoke the tool.

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 three tight sentences: what it does, what it returns, and when to use it. No redundant words, no repetition of schema details, and the most important info (purpose and output) is up front.

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?

The tool is lightweight (one required parameter, simple output) and the description covers the core value: combining domain and trademark signals into a recommendation tier. It doesn't need to explain return format in detail, as the output is described in plain language, and the schema covers optional inputs. A slightly fuller note on what happens if optional params are omitted would make it a 5, but it's still complete enough.

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 parameters, so the schema already explains what each parameter does. The description does not add any extra parameter-specific guidance, but it also doesn't need to—the baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the load.

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: 'combines domain availability with a trademark conflict signal' and lists the exact output (recommendation tier). This distinguishes it from siblings like check_domain_availability, which likely only covers domain checks, and run_knockout_search, which is a deeper search.

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 phrase 'Good first step before a full clearance search' provides clear situational guidance, implying the tool is for initial screening rather than exhaustive analysis. It does not explicitly name an alternative sibling, but the context is sufficient to indicate when to use it versus more comprehensive tools.

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