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

Annotations already declare this a safe read-only operation (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds useful context about the output (owners ranked by footprint, wider portfolio context), but does not disclose potential heavy queries, pagination, or any caveats about the 'landscape' aggregation.

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 states the core action, the second provides usage context and return summary. It is front-loaded, concise, and every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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?

Despite having 5 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential context: it explains the output type (owners ranked by footprint with portfolio context), gives concrete examples, and the schema covers parameters and returns. The lack of extra behavior notes is acceptable given the annotations and minimal complexity.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides; examples like 'COMET' subtly imply contains-match, but the schema explicitly documents match_mode.

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 ('Show') and resource ('owners holding marks matching a shared trademark term'), and clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on owner landscape with portfolio context. Examples like 'Which companies own a trademark for COMET?' ground 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 includes explicit guidance on when to use the tool ('Use this for crowded owner-landscape questions...'), providing clear context. However, it does not mention alternatives or exclusions, stopping short of a 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.