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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: the search takes a minute or two and is asynchronous, returning a job id to read back with get_result. It also discloses the shape of each match (similarity score, match type, live-registration status).

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 tight sentences, no filler. The capability statement is front-loaded, followed by usage and then the async caveat, which is exactly the ordering an agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still usefully previews the return contents and, critically, explains the asynchronous job-id pattern so the agent knows to call get_result. Nothing needed to invoke or follow up on this tool is missing.

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 both parameters are already documented, including brand_name's role in sharpening the text match. The description implies the image's 'wording' feeds the third comparison mode but adds no syntax or format detail 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?

Specific verb+resource: compares a logo image against U.S. and international registers via three named comparison modes (shape, depiction, wording). Clearly distinguishable from siblings check_brand and check_name, which operate on brand/word marks rather than artwork.

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?

Gives an explicit triggering scenario ('when someone shares artwork and asks whether it clashes with an existing mark') and routes the agent to get_result for retrieval. It does not explicitly state when-not-to-use or name check_name/check_brand as the word-mark alternative, so routing to siblings is left to inference.

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