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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does so: it declares the tool read-only, offline, deterministic ('same name always gives the same result'), and warns that there is 'no live data and no register results.' It also discloses the shape of the response, which matters for a tool with no output schema.

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?

The key constraint is front-loaded and every sentence contributes routing or output information. It is slightly redundant, since 'no live data and no register results' restates the opening 'WITHOUT checking the register', but the density is justified for a tool whose behavior differs sharply from its siblings.

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 two-parameter, non-destructive analysis tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, determinism, data freshness, return contents, the optional parameter's effect, and sibling routing. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema: it explains the mechanism by which goodsDescription matters — 'a descriptive word for those goods scores weaker than the same word for unrelated goods' — and frames omitting it as a valid name-only read.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Analyze a brand name's strength') and immediately bounds the scope ('WITHOUT checking the register — read-only, offline, deterministic'). It also names the exact output artifacts (distinctiveness spectrum, phonetic collisions, checklist), so an agent can distinguish it from screen_trademark without opening either 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?

Explicit routing is provided in both directions: 'pair it with screen_trademark, which checks the actual federal register', 'Use this to judge how protectable a name is; use screen_trademark to judge whether it conflicts.' The when-to-use and when-not-to-use conditions are stated outright rather than implied.

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