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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds meaningful detail beyond them: the data source ('public firm resolution and prosecution mappings only') and explicit exclusions (workspace, client, reminder, user-created data). This enriches the agent's understanding of the tool's limitations 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary verb and resource, followed by a clarifying limitation. Every word earns its place; no fluff or repetition.

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 an output schema present and a read-only tool of moderate complexity (7 params, all documented), the description sufficiently covers the tool's scope, data source, and exclusions. It gives the agent enough to correctly decide invocation without needing to parse the schema.

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 provides 100% description coverage for all 7 parameters, including defaults and enum values. The description itself does not add parameter-specific information, but per the rubric, a baseline of 3 applies when the schema carries the load. No compensation needed.

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 the specific verb 'Get' and precisely identifies the resource: 'public, system-generated trademark deadlines across marks handled by a specific law firm.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_mark_deadlines and get_owner_deadlines by the firm-level scope.

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 context ('public, system-generated' and 'Does not expose any workspace, client, reminder, or user-created deadline data') that tells the agent when to use this tool and what it will not return. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for those excluded cases, so it falls short of a 5.

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