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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds behavioral context by disclosing that results include evidence and a high/possible confidence tier, with 'possible' marked as tentative. It also specifies that agent addresses are excluded from evidence, which is useful nuance beyond 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?

The description is relatively long but every sentence contributes value: core purpose, evidence types, return details, usage guidance, and name-resolution note. It is front-loaded with the primary action and tapers into practical details. No filler or 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?

Given there is no output schema, the description adequately covers the return shape (evidence and confidence tier) and the caution about 'possible'. It also covers input requirements and typical use cases. Minor gaps include pagination or limit behavior, but the limit parameter is self-explanatory and the tool is read-only, so the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

Both parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds extra guidance on owner_name: pass it exactly as recorded and resolve first if ambiguous. It also notes internal normalization to the owner key, which helps the agent understand the parameter's semantics beyond the schema.

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 verb ('Find') and resource ('entities likely related to a trademark owner'), and specifies the types of relationships (predecessors, subsidiaries, sister companies) and evidence sources. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_owner_ai_summary or get_chain_of_title without explicitly naming them.

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 explicit use cases: analyzing an owner's full corporate family, portfolio scope, or determining affiliation between owners of similar marks. It also advises resolving the owner name with resolve_trademark_subject first if ambiguous. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide when to use it.

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