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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful return-content context—brand, legal owner, and mark ownership—but does not mention reliability, scraping limitations, or what happens when ownership cannot be determined.

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?

It is a single compact sentence with no wasted words, and the input source is front-loaded before the returned information. The fragmentary style is terse but effective.

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?

With no output schema, the description does communicate the main return concepts, and all three parameters are documented in the schema. However, it omits when to use this over read_site and does not characterize open-world lookup behavior beyond the annotation.

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%, so the schema already explains site, brand, and owner overrides. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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 states a specific resource extraction task: from a site/app-store link it returns the brand, legal owner, and USPTO mark ownership. A verb is implied rather than explicit, and it does not distinguish itself from the sibling read_site, but the output-oriented purpose is clear.

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?

It implies usage when a website or app-store link is available, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions. The sibling read_site likely overlaps, yet the description never explains when to choose check_site instead.

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