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

Annotations already declare this as a safe read-only operation (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds context about trademark registration and the two lookup modes, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide. This aligns with the calibration where a read-only lookup with annotation coverage earns a 3.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every phrase adds value. It efficiently conveys the tool's function and its two input modes without redundancy or fluff.

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 simple tool nature, strong annotations, full schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers the essential lookup capabilities and is sufficient for an agent to understand when and how to invoke the tool, especially with sibling tools providing related but distinct functions.

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 coverage is 100%, with both search_term and class_numbers already described in the input schema. The description mentions the two modes but adds no extra detail about parameter syntax, constraints, or interactions. This meets the baseline for schema-covered parameters without needing further compensation from the description.

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's purpose: getting information about Nice Classification classes for trademark registration. It distinguishes from siblings like recommend_nice_classes by focusing on lookup and search rather than recommendation, and from get_class_relationships by targeting class details rather than relationships.

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 explains the two primary usage modes: looking up specific class numbers or searching by keyword. This implies when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as using recommend_nice_classes for class suggestions. The context is clear enough for an agent to select this tool for direct class information needs.

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