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

Annotations cover the safety/scope profile (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds genuinely useful behavior: the full set of sources consulted, the three-way verdict taxonomy (clear/caution/conflict), and that a report plus PDF link is produced. It omits duration, cost, and any rate limits for what is evidently an expensive multi-register lookup.

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?

Two sentences, with the decisive routing advice front-loaded. The colon-delimited coverage list is dense but informative; each clause carries content, though the first sentence runs long.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain returns, and annotations plus the 100%-covered schema handle safety and parameters. An agent has everything needed to select and call it; only cost/latency expectations for a multi-register check are unstated.

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 classes, mark, and image are already documented, including the pointer to suggest_classes. The description reframes image as the user's logo and marks it optional, but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so 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?

Specific verb-plus-resource with full scope enumerated: name, logo, domains, social handles across U.S. and international registers, resolved into one verdict. It is clearly distinguished from the narrower siblings (check_name, check_logo) by being 'the complete check.'

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?

Explicit routing rule: 'the one to prefer when someone asks whether a brand is free,' plus the conditional for the optional logo input. It stops short of naming check_name/check_logo as the narrow alternatives or saying when this heavier check is overkill.

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