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 value beyond that by disclosing the data source ('Uses public firm resolution and prosecution mappings only') and explicitly excluding workspace, client, reminder, or user-created deadlines. This gives an agent a clear picture of what is and isn't included 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, zero filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second adds the critical scope limitation. Every word earns its place; no redundant phrases or restatement of the title.

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 tool's moderate complexity (7 params, 1 required) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and data scope. It does not mention pagination, firm resolution failure behavior, or edge cases, but those are secondary given the output schema and annotations. The description is adequate for an agent to decide when to call it and what to expect.

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% — every parameter (firm_name, limit, days_back, days_ahead, status_filter, include_opposition_period, include_informational_windows) has a meaningful description. The tool description itself does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Per the rubric, the baseline of 3 applies when the schema fully documents parameters.

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 ('Get') and resource ('public, system-generated trademark deadlines across marks handled by a specific law firm'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling deadline tools like get_mark_deadlines (single mark) and get_owner_deadlines (owner) by anchoring on firm-level aggregation. The phrase 'Does not expose any workspace, client, reminder, or user-created deadline data' further sharpens the 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: it is for firm-level deadlines, public and system-generated only. This implies when to use it (aggregate deadlines across a firm's marks) but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. There is no mention of 'use get_mark_deadlines for a single mark' or similar routing, so it falls short of an explicit 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.