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

Annotations already establish the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive nature. The description adds valuable behavioral context: results are citable, contain stable ids, human-readable titles, public URLs, and the database covers 14M+ applications (live and dead). It also discloses that full records require fetch, going beyond what annotations provide.

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 sentences with no filler: purpose, result format, and follow-up instruction are presented in a logical order, front-loading the core action. Every sentence contributes essential information.

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 general search tool, the description covers the result format, database scope, and next step (fetch). It lacks mention of sorting, pagination, or result count, but these are minor given the tool's simplicity and the annotations covering safety. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit result description.

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?

The schema's parameter description for 'query' is already thorough (search terms, mark/brand/owner, examples), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter details, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate given the schema's completeness.

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 searches GleanMark's USPTO trademark database and returns citable results, specifying the output structure (stable id, title, URL). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling search tools like search_trademarks or search_by_owner, relying instead on the mention of 'citable results' and the follow-up fetch instruction to imply its role as a general entry point.

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 advises using the fetch tool with a returned id to read the full record, which is a follow-up action, but it offers no guidance on when to use this search versus the many specialized search tools (e.g., search_by_owner, search_goods_services). It fails to specify conditions for selecting this tool over alternatives.

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