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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds useful context on what the tool returns: 'matching companies/individuals with their trademark portfolio statistics (total marks, live/dead counts, registered/pending).' This goes beyond the annotations, explaining output contents and reinforcing the read-only nature.

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 concise (two sentences), front-loads the core purpose, and each clause adds value: the purpose, exclusions, and output summary. No redundant or filler content is present.

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 simplicity (2 params, output schema present) and strong annotations, the description provides sufficient context: a clear action, explicit boundaries, and a summary of the return payload. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 description coverage is 100% for both parameters, with clear descriptions for owner_name and limit. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Search for trademark owners by name.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings by stating exclusions: 'not for owner counts, rankings, prosecution snapshots, or recent activity checks.' This differentiates it from tools like count_trademarks_by_attributes and get_owner_filing_trends.

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 states when to use the tool: 'Use this to resolve or list candidate owners.' It also lists exclusions ('not for owner counts, rankings, prosecution snapshots, or recent activity checks'), but does not name alternative sibling tools directly. This provides clear context without naming alternatives.

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