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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds behavioral context by detailing the process (web research, market overlap, scoring) and positioning it as the most thorough option, which implies longer runtime or more comprehensive output—valuable beyond the annotations. No contradiction with 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 two concise, front-loaded sentences. The first states the tool's function and scope; the second provides actionable guidance about an alternative. No filler or repetition—every sentence earns its place.

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 (13-factor analysis, web research) and the absence of an output schema, the description communicates the essential scope and output nature ('factor-by-factor scoring'). It doesn't specify output format or runtime expectations, but for an agent selecting between tools, this is sufficient to invoke correctly. The sibling context further clarifies its role as the thorough alternative.

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 both serial_a and serial_b described as USPTO serial numbers. The description only confirms 'between two trademarks' without adding parameter-specific syntax or constraints beyond the schema, so the schema carries the informational weight. Baseline 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 runs a full 13-factor DuPont likelihood of confusion analysis between two trademarks, using a specific verb ('Run') and resource. It explicitly differentiates from sibling tool compare_marks by labeling itself the 'most thorough' option, making its 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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'use compare_marks for a quick check first' identifies an alternative and implies this tool is for thorough, deep-dive analysis. It also outlines what the analysis includes (web research, market overlap, factor-by-factor scoring), giving clear context for when to choose it.

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