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

The description adds caching behavior ('Results are cached for 30 days') and the AI-generated nature of the output, supplementing the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations. It also outlines the analysis dimensions, which sets expectations for the response content beyond what annotations convey.

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?

Three sentences, each adding value: purpose, content areas, and caching. Front-loaded and free of 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?

With one well-documented parameter and robust annotations, the description sufficiently covers the tool's behavior. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit list of analysis areas, though it could mention response format or variability, leaving a small gap.

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%, with the parameter fully documented including format examples and prerequisite instruction. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Get an AI-generated strategic analysis of a trademark owner' and enumerates five specific content areas (brand protection philosophy, litigation posture, portfolio evolution, class distribution, likely future behavior), making the purpose unmistakable and distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_mark_ai_summary.

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 schema explicitly instructs to 'Use search_by_owner first to find the correct normalized name,' providing a clear prerequisite for correct usage. However, the description does not name alternatives for specific owner analyses (e.g., get_owner_filing_trends) nor explicitly state when not to use this tool, so it's clear but lacks exclusions.

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