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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description's added value is stating that results show designated and refusing countries, but a dedicated output schema exists, so this return-content detail is largely duplicative and no auth, rate-limit, or pagination context is provided.

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 zero filler, and the core capability is front-loaded ahead of the usage hint. Every clause carries information an agent can act on.

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?

Purpose, usage context, and result content are covered, and an output schema plus safety annotations reduce what the description must carry. However, with 0% schema coverage and no explanation of `classes`, an agent cannot tell how to narrow the search, which matters for a search tool with a 100-char name field.

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 0%, so the description must explain both parameters. "By name" gives partial meaning to `mark`, but the `classes` parameter (Nice classes 1-45, max 6, presumably for limiting hits) is never mentioned, leaving the filtering syntax entirely to inference.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ("Searches WIPO Madrid System international registrations by name") and states what each hit contains. It implicitly separates itself from name/brand lookups via "international" and "abroad," though it never names the sibling tools it competes with.

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 a clear when-to-use condition: "Use this for questions about protecting a name abroad." It supplies positive context but no exclusions or explicit routing against check_name, check_brand, or suggest_classes.

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