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

Beyond the readOnly annotation, the description discloses substantial behavior: returns 4-tier risk groups, a calibrated top-line verdict, dead-mark naming territory sample, and explains that risk bands depend on goods_description. It also sets latency expectations. 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?

Though verbose, every sentence earns its place: definition, search dimensions, output format, calibration, user instructions, exclusions, latency, and optional parameter context. Front-loaded and information-dense without 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?

For a complex search tool with no output schema, the description thoroughly explains return values (risk groups, confusion scores, dead-mark sample, top-line verdict) and provides performance and usage context. Combined with the detailed schema, it gives the agent a complete picture.

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 all 7 parameters with detailed descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds an explicit 'ALWAYS pass goods_description' rule tied to risk underestimation, and mentions design_codes and coordinated class expansion in the search scope, providing extra context. Slight redundancy with schema, but the additions justify a 4.

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 identifies the tool as a knockout trademark conflict search using the unified knockout engine, over 14M USPTO records. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting it does NOT do domain/brand availability checks and naming check_brand_availability as the alternative.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives: 'It does NOT check domain availability... use check_brand_availability instead.' Also gives concrete usage rules: always pass goods_description when known, warn the user about up-to-a-minute latency, and optional owner_name adds portfolio context.

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