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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations: it lists the specific fields returned (mark, owner, status, dates, Nice classes, goods/services, counsel) and notes the public gleanmark.com citation URL. This provides useful context without contradicting the annotations.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose, then lists return contents. No filler or redundant phrasing. Every clause adds value.

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?

For a single-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs to know: what to pass, what it returns, and a citation URL. Combined with annotations covering safety, nothing critical is missing.

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 already explains the id parameter thoroughly, including format and example. The description's mention of 'using an id returned by the search tool' reinforces but does not substantially expand beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the parameter semantics.

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?

States a specific verb ('Retrieve'), a precise resource ('full USPTO record for one trademark'), and the input source ('id returned by the search tool'). Clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search or lookup_trademark by focusing on a single record retrieval with a given id.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it: 'using an id returned by the search tool.' This provides a clear precondition but does not name alternative tools for other scenarios (e.g., if only a serial number is known, one might need search first). The guidance is contextually clear but not exhaustive.

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