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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, and it does substantial work: declares read-only semantics, describes the return shape (EU/UK hits scored like screen_trademark, plus classes used), and discloses the degraded path ({ checked: false, reason } with a manual link) with the underlying cause (TMview has no published API and resets connections from plain HTTP clients). It does not mention latency or retry behavior, which is the main remaining gap for a best-effort network-dependent tool.

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?

Front-loads what is checked and where, then return shape, then the ordering rule, then the failure mode and the legal caveat. Each sentence carries a distinct load and none is filler, including the compact "Read-only." fragment.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the gaps that matter: return contents, degraded-response shape, cause of failure, and the caveat that a clear result is a signal, not clearance. Nothing an agent needs to call it, interpret it, or recover from failure 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 the schema already documents name, classes, and goodsDescription including the inference behavior. The description adds only tangential meaning via "the classes used" and "class-relatedness scoring," without new format or syntax guidance beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb (check) and resource (a brand name against EU + UK trademark registers via TMview), and names the exact jurisdictions covered (offices EM + GB). It also implicitly distinguishes itself from the US-focused screen_trademark sibling, so an agent can route correctly without opening the schema.

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 ordering rule ("Use AFTER screen_trademark when you also sell in the EU/UK") and names the condition that selects this tool. It also states the US screen is unaffected if TMview is down, clarifying that partial failure here does not invalidate prior work.

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