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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lowered. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: it returns marks sorted by prosecution history length and includes event counts and office action flags. It doesn't fully disclose the meaning of 'office action flags' or any nuances of the sort, but it does add behavioral value beyond what annotations provide.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. The core functionality is front-loaded ('Get all trademarks handled by a specific attorney/correspondent'), followed by return details and a usage hint. Every sentence earns its place, and it is appropriately brief for a query tool.

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 has 7 optional parameters and no output schema. The description covers the core function and return characteristics, and the schema provides full parameter documentation. However, it does not address how to choose among the redundant correspondent identifiers (search_term vs correspondent_name vs correspondent_id vs canonical_correspondent_id), which could confuse an agent. That small gap prevents a perfect score, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a read-only query tool with annotations.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so baselines at 3. The description does not elaborate on parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. For instance, it mentions 'attorney-specific mark queries' but does not explain the multiple alias parameters (search_term, correspondent_id, correspondent_name, canonical_correspondent_id). Since the schema fully documents each parameter, the description adds minimal extra value here.

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 and resource: 'Get all trademarks handled by a specific attorney/correspondent'. It also names the key features (prosecution event counts and office action flags) and the sorting order. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_correspondent_specialization or get_firm_correspondent_tasks, which focus on different aspects.

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 says 'Use this for attorney-specific mark queries', which gives clear context on when to invoke it. However, it does not mention alternatives or conditions when not to use it, such as when the user wants marks by owner or firm rather than a specific correspondent. That lack of exclusions keeps it at a 4 rather than a 5.

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