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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation is reinforced by the description's 'Free, no account' and the non-revealing hash-check behavior. The description adds valuable context about limitations ('never who created something first in the world') and the privacy-preserving nature of output_hash, going beyond the annotation.

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?

Five sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, then usage context, parameter guidance, and access cost. No filler or redundant content, though it is slightly wordier than necessary in the 'if something close already exists...' clause.

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?

The description covers the workflow timing, the two search modes, access requirements, and a key limitation. There is no output schema, so a bit more detail on what the returned matches contain would improve completeness, but for a read-only search tool with strong parameter hints, this is sufficient.

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 is 3. The description adds meaning for text (search by meaning) and output_hash (SHA-256 exact-content check without revealing it). This is useful disambiguation beyond the schema's brief descriptions, though limit is only covered by the schema.

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 clearly states the tool checks whether anything similar exists on the public record and who recorded it there. It explicitly positions itself as a pre-publication/pre-registration check, distinguishing it from sibling tools that certify, notarize, or claim authorship.

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?

The description explicitly says 'Use it BEFORE publishing or registering' and explains the two possible outcomes (existing match vs. checked-clear). It does not name specific sibling tools as alternatives for the registering step, but the before-context is clear and actionable.

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