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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by clarifying the data scope (public, system-generated) and the exclusion of workspace/client/user-created data. It does not describe edge cases like not-found behavior, but that is acceptable given 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 deliver the full purpose, input modes, and exclusions without waste. The key scope is front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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, return format is not needed. The description covers how to specify the mark (serial or name), the data scope (public, system-generated), and what is excluded. Defaults are in the schema. It is complete for a read-only query tool, though it could mention resolution behavior in more detail if that were a common failure point.

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%, so all eight parameters are documented in the schema. The description's mention of 'resolves a mark name to a specific serial first' slightly reinforces subject_name but adds no new semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high coverage.

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 clearly states the tool gets public, system-generated trademark deadlines for a specific mark, and specifies input modes (serial number or resolving a mark name). It distinguishes itself from sibling deadline tools (firm, owner) by explicitly noting it does not expose workspace, client, reminder, or user-created deadlines.

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 gives clear context: it is for public system-generated deadlines for a specific mark, and it explicitly states what it does not expose, implying when not to use it. However, it does not name alternative tools (e.g., get_firm_deadlines) directly, so it falls short of 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.