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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: a successful lookup returns checked:true, and failures surface as an error rather than a misleading empty result — critical for the agent not to misinterpret silence as 'no marks found'. The only weakness is that "checked" is an output field with no surrounding explanation.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the error-semantics caveat and scope limit. Every sentence carries weight; no padding.

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 full schema coverage, rich annotations, and no output schema required, the agent has enough to call correctly: modes, scope, and failure behavior are all addressed. The dangling reference to a checked output field is the only loose end.

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 coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already well documented in the schema, including the mark/owner listing behavior. The description reinforces the two modes but adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail (e.g., how classes affects sorting) beyond what the schema 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?

"Searches live USPTO records for marks with this name, or lists an owner's marks" states a specific verb and resource and names both operating modes. It doesn't differentiate from close siblings like screen_mark or suggest_alternatives, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 each mode's trigger (name search vs owner listing) and adds a scope constraint ("Federal records only"), giving the agent context on when this applies. However, it gives no explicit when-not guidance or pointers to alternatives such as screen_mark or suggest_alternatives for related tasks.

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