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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it resolves/normalizes a firm name, aggregates deadlines and recent OAs from dual sources (case-file events and prosecution documents), and includes ROA-filed and §2(d) indicators. This goes beyond the basic safety profile, though it does not discuss pagination, rate limits, or exact return formatting.

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 sentences: the first packs the core function and scope, the second provides concrete example queries. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

For a 4-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers purpose, data sources, and inclusion criteria well. It does not list alternatives or return structure, but the example questions and explicit content summary suffice for the tool's complexity. Slight gap: no mention of how results are ordered or whether both deadlines and OAs are always present.

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 each parameter has a clear description with defaults and bounds. The tool description adds little to parameter semantics—only the example 'over the next 30 days' hints at deadline_days usage. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the full burden.

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 uses a specific verb ('Resolve a trademark law firm and return') and clearly identifies the resource ('firm correspondent tasks'). It enumerates exactly what is returned (overdue/next-window deadlines, recent Office Actions from case-file events and prosecution documents, ROA-filed and §2(d) indicators), distinguishing it from simpler firm-deadline or OA-only tools. Example questions reinforce the purpose.

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 provides clear usage context with example questions ('what correspondent tasks should this firm focus on over the next 30 days?'). It implies when to use the tool but does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternative sibling tools, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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