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

Annotations already declare this as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds value by explaining the matching algorithm (phonetic, trigram, component) and the meaning of similarity_score vs confusion_score, including the commercial overlap concept. This goes beyond the annotations and schema.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds meaningful information 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?

With annotations covering safety, a rich schema, and an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description still adds context about the scoring semantics and intended use case. It is complete for a search tool of this complexity, providing enough for an agent to invoke 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?

Schema covers 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal param-specific context (e.g., mark_name, limit, include_dead) but does not go beyond the schema. It mentions scores which relate to output rather than parameters, so no extra param semantics.

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 it finds USPTO trademarks similar to a given mark name, specifying the search method (examiner-style knockout with phonetic, trigram, and component matching) and the purpose (identify potential conflicts). This distinguishes it from siblings like run_knockout_search and phonetic_search by highlighting the specialized output scores.

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?

It explicitly says 'Useful for trademark clearance searches,' providing a clear context. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, but the use case is sufficiently clear for an agent to decide when to select this tool over others.

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