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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds significant context beyond those: it explains that the tool returns a screening tier and top conflicts, qualifies results as open-world ('none surfaced, not available'), and explicitly lists what the tool does not cover. This aligns with and enriches the annotations without contradiction.

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?

Three sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and output, the second defines scope and interpretation, and the third points to the alternative. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is perfectly scannable.

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?

With no output schema, the description explicitly specifies return values (screening tier with named options, top conflicts, domain snapshot). It also covers the open-world interpretation and the boundary with run_knockout_search, giving an agent everything needed to call the tool correctly and interpret results.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context that industries/classes are used for the trademark screen, but it does not provide additional semantics for brand_name or business_description beyond what the schema already states. It doesn't introduce new parameter-level guidance, so a 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 names a specific verb+resource ('brand-name screen') and enumerates exactly what it does: checks domain registration, .com site usage, and similar trademarks, and returns a screening tier with top conflicts and a domain snapshot. It also differentiates from run_knockout_search by calling it the fuller search, making the tool's distinct role unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('first look') and when not to rely on it ('not a clearance search'), lists the specific omissions (common-law use, state registrations, goods-relatedness), and warns that no conflicts does not mean availability. It names run_knockout_search as the alternative for deeper conflict analysis, leaving no ambiguity.

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