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

Goes well beyond readOnlyHint/openWorldHint by disclosing the paid-call model ($0.002 USDC via x402 on Base/Solana/Arc), that failed calls are free, and the dataset's coverage limit and superseded vintage. Those are exactly the facts an agent needs before spending money or trusting freshness.

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 provenance and returned fields are front-loaded, and the pricing caveat is isolated in its own sentence. The first sentence is dense and clause-heavy, but no content is filler.

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?

Despite an output schema existing, the description still summarizes the returned fields and flags the key absence (applicant names) and the data vintage. Combined with pricing terms, nothing an agent needs to decide whether and how to call it 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% and the schema already specifies digits-only, up to 9 characters. The description adds only that the lookup key is the trade mark number, which restates the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (IP Australia trade mark records by trade mark number), names the source table and its vintage, and enumerates the returned attributes. An agent can distinguish it from a generic trademark search or from gov_tmview_trademarks 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?

"by trade mark number" plus "Applicant names are not in this table" implicitly rules out name-based searches and steers the agent to another source for applicant lookups, and the superseded 2017 edition flag warns against using it when freshness matters. No sibling is named explicitly, so routing is inferred rather than stated.

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