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

Annotations already flag openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety/profile is partly covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: which external registers are queried and that the result includes closest conflicting marks with similarity, status, and liveness. It does not discuss rate limits or latency, hence not a 5.

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, zero filler. The capability statement is front-loaded and the usage trigger follows, which is exactly the order an agent benefits from.

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 so return values need not be spelled out, and the description still summarizes them (conflicting marks, similarity, status, liveness). With 100% schema coverage, annotations for the open-world read profile, and clear usage trigger, nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

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 documents both parameters including the suggest_classes dependency and the 1-45 Nice class range. The description only alludes to 'the chosen classes' and adds no syntax or format meaning beyond the schema, so the 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?

The description states a specific verb (scores) and resource (a proposed brand name) and scopes it to two named registers (U.S. federal trademark and international Madrid) within selected classes. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like check_brand, check_logo, and search_international.

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 gives a concrete trigger: 'Use this when someone asks whether a name is taken, available, or safe to register.' That is clear usage context, but it names no alternative tools or when-not-to-use conditions, and the dependency on suggest_classes appears only in the schema, not the description.

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