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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety. The description adds that the output is chronological and raw, but does not disclose any pagination, filtering, or error behavior. Given the annotations cover the safety profile, the description provides moderate additional context but not rich behavioral detail.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and immediately followed by a clarifying list of contents. There is zero waste, and the 'Raw data without AI analysis' note is succinct and valuable for sibling differentiation.

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?

For a simple getter with one parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description provides sufficient context: what the tool returns (chronological list of events) and its nature (raw data). It does not mention response format or error handling, but these are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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% for the single parameter serial_number, which is described as 'USPTO serial number.' The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a prosecution timeline for a trademark, listing specific event types (office actions, responses, publication, registration, suspension). It distinguishes itself from analysis tools by explicitly saying 'Raw data without AI analysis,' which sets it apart from siblings like analyze_prosecution_history. The verb-resource pairing is precise.

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 implies when to use it (when raw chronological data is needed) and implicitly contrasts with AI analysis tools. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative tool or state a condition like 'use analyze_prosecution_history for analysis.' The guidance is clear but not fully explicit about exclusions.

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