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

The annotations provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds substantial behavioral context: clause-by-clause processing (split on ';'), three output categories (verbatim, close, freeform), the $200 surcharge, and deterministic no-AI-rewriting behavior. This goes well beyond the annotations, giving the agent important operational details.

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 concise sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core function, the second explains output categories and fee implications, and the third emphasizes determinism. The description is front-loaded with the main purpose and contains no filler.

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 tool has an output schema (per the context signals), so return values are covered structurally. The description provides essential decision logic including clause splitting, output classification, surcharge details, and determinism, making it sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly. The optional classes parameter is adequately documented in the schema.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics for the text parameter (clause splitting on ';') and explains output behavior per clause, but does not elaborate on the optional classes parameter beyond what the schema already documents.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('draft goods & services description against the USPTO ID Manual'). It also details clause-by-clause processing, distinguishing it from sibling tools like suggest_gs_descriptions which generates descriptions rather than validating them.

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 its use for validating an existing draft against USPTO rules, including specific output categories and fee implications. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, though the sibling context (suggest_gs_descriptions) makes the distinction fairly clear.

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