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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral details: the deterministic nature ('no AI rewriting'), the three classification outcomes (verbatim, close, freeform), and the $200/class surcharge implication. This goes beyond the annotations and enriches the agent's understanding of what the tool does and does not do.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main action, then concise details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It efficiently covers the process, outcomes, surcharge, and determinism in a compact format.

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?

The description covers the process, outcomes, surcharge, and determinism, which is quite complete for a validation tool. An output schema is indicated, so return values are presumably documented. It does not mention potential errors or rate limits, but for a read-only deterministic tool this is acceptable. Given the complexity of the task (clause-level validation), the description provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke it 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?

The schema already documents both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds context: the text is split on ';' and the classes parameter affects whether matches span classes. This adds meaning beyond the schema, clarifying how the input is processed and how the optional parameter changes behavior.

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 action ('Check') and the resource ('draft goods & services description against the USPTO ID Manual'). It also details the clause-by-clause process and the three possible outcomes (verbatim, close, freeform), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like search_goods_services or suggest_gs_descriptions, so it falls short of a 5.

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 implies usage for validating a draft description, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or conditions. There is no reference to sibling tools or when not to use it, which is a significant gap for an agent trying to decide between this and similar tools.

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