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

Annotations already indicate this is read-only and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the returned fields and the public gleanmark.com citation URL, which is especially valuable given the absence of an output schema. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 a single well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and then enumerates the return contents. Every piece of information serves a purpose without redundancy or filler.

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 the simple one-parameter schema, read-only annotations, and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what the tool does, where the id comes from, and what the results include. Nothing essential for calling the tool correctly 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?

The input schema already fully documents the single 'id' parameter with an example and accepted alternative format. The description adds meaning by explaining that the id comes from a search tool result and that the tool retrieves one trademark, which helps the agent correctly source and pass the parameter.

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 states a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('the full USPTO record for one trademark'), and clarifies the required input is an id from the search tool. It also lists the key record fields returned, making the tool's function unmistakable and distinct from broad search tools.

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 clearly indicates this tool should be used after a search, using an id returned by the search tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools, but the dependency on a prior search is a clear and useful usage signal.

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