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

Annotations already cover read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by disclosing an authentication requirement for specific entity types and indicating the output is a 'best match,' which goes beyond the structured annotations and provides useful behavioral context.

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 sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second adds a critical prerequisite. Both sentences are necessary and information-dense, with no filler or repetition. It is front-loaded with the primary action.

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?

The tool handles multiple entity types and has no output schema, yet the description does not clarify whether it returns a single best match or a list of candidates. The 'limit' parameter implies multiple candidates, but the description says 'best match' (singular), creating ambiguity. It could be more complete by describing the response structure or matching confidence.

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%, with each parameter already described in detail. The description adds no new parameter information beyond what the schema provides; it essentially restates the enum values. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the full weight.

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 resolves an ambiguous name to the best trademark entity match, listing concrete entity types (owner, firm, correspondent, mark, TTAB proceeding, client, portfolio). This distinguishes it from sibling search/lookup tools by focusing on disambiguation rather than raw searching.

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 usage for resolving ambiguous names and adds a key prerequisite: 'Resolving clients and portfolios requires authentication.' It does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use, but the entity-type scope and auth note provide clear contextual guidance.

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