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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses significant behavioral limitations: whole-mark comparison misses containing sound-alikes, and thin/empty results are not evidence of absence. It explicitly cautions against using this for clearance conclusions, adding critical interpretive context that annotations cannot 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core function, then uses a clearly marked 'LIMITS' section for critical caveats. Every sentence contributes essential information—there is no fluff. The structure helps an agent quickly understand both capability and boundaries.

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 tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it covers the algorithm, scope limitations, alternative tools, and explicit guidance for when not to use it. It fully equips an agent to make correct invocation decisions even without seeing the output schema.

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 only 40%, so the description must compensate. It does explain the key parameter via 'whole-mark similarity threshold', which directly clarifies similarity_threshold. It does not elaborate on limit or include_dead, but those are fairly self-explanatory. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema for the core algorithm while leaving some minor gaps.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Find trademarks whose WHOLE mark sounds similar to the given mark', with a clear method (Metaphone + trigram). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_similar_marks by emphasizing whole-mark comparison, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool (whole-mark sound-alike searches) and when not to rely on it: it warns about multi-word marks containing sound-alikes and explicitly directs to list_marks_containing_term for variant spellings and run_knockout_search for availability/clearance questions. This is textbook usage guidance with named alternatives.

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