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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: read-only semantics, a 100 screens/day rate limit, the shape of the result (risk verdict tiers, ranked conflicts with similarity/class/live-dead/owner/serial, data-as-of date), and a CSV variant. It also discloses the liability boundary, which is behaviorally relevant for a legal-adjacent 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-loaded with purpose, then read-only and rate limit, then return payload, then the sibling handoffs — a sensible ordering with little wasted wording. It is dense, packing a long parenthetical inventory of returned fields, but every sentence carries usable information.

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?

For a 5-parameter, two-required-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies everything an agent needs: scope, safety profile, quota, return contract, and next steps. No material gap remains.

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 every parameter is already documented and the baseline is 3. The description only restates the format='csv' behavior (one row per hit, spreadsheet-friendly) without adding syntax, defaults, or guidance on when to specify classes versus letting them be inferred.

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 and resource — screening a brand name against the USPTO federal register — and frames it as the US-jurisdiction step distinct from check_global_marks (EU/UK) and check_domains. An agent can distinguish it from every sibling 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?

Explicitly says 'Use this FIRST for any name' and then chains the alternatives in order: check_global_marks for EU/UK, check_domains for the domain, watch_mark to monitor. It also states exclusions ('SCREEN ONLY — not a clearance opinion, not legal advice'), so both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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