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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds the shape of the payload (wording/type/period/dating notes vs history/aliases/look-alikes, plus page links), but much of that overlaps with the existing output schema rather than adding genuinely new behavioral context.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the resource and scope stated first, followed by a compact semicolon-delimited field list and a trailing note about links. Dense but no filler sentences; the field enumeration is the only slightly heavy part.

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 one-parameter read tool with a rich annotation set and an output schema, the description covers purpose, both entity types, and return contents. What remains missing is explicit routing against the sibling tools, which is the main thing an agent could still get wrong.

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 id parameter is fully documented there, including the "mark:..." / "maker:category/slug" formats. The description's only addition is confirming the id may refer to either a mark or a maker, which is marginal beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 concrete verb and resource ("Returns the full public record for one mark or one maker") and enumerates the record contents, so the agent knows exactly what it gets. The "one mark or one maker" scope implicitly separates it from the plural siblings (find_makers, get_maker_marks), but no sibling is named outright.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase "from earlier results" in the schema hints this is a follow-up drill-down after a search, and the singular scope implies it is not a list tool. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_maker_marks or identify_mark, and no exclusions.

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