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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by stating that it returns selectable Term IDs and explaining that curly-brace placeholders are fill-in templates, which clarifies how to interpret results.

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: source, usage pattern, and return behavior are each covered efficiently. The most important selection criterion ('plain words') is front-loaded.

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 simple read-only search tool with an output schema and complete parameter documentation, the description covers the source, call granularity, and placeholder interpretation. It is complete enough to invoke correctly, though sibling differentiation remains implicit.

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%, and the schema already documents query, limit, classes, and gs_type. The description reinforces that query should represent one product/service line, but it does not add new parameter syntax or format details beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Search the USPTO Trademark ID Manual...' and explains the output ('Returns selectable Term IDs'). The ID Manual and plain-words framing clearly differentiate it from generic trademark search siblings, even without naming an 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 call-granularity guidance: 'Call once per distinct product/service line... not once per whole business' with a concrete example. It does not name sibling alternatives or give when-not-to-use conditions, but the intended use context is clear.

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