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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating the tool returns up to 100 processes and lists the returned fields (marca, número, classe, situação, titular), which goes beyond basic annotations without contradicting them.

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 description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the core action and result limit. Every sentence earns its place: the first states what it searches and the second explains the value and return payload. No fluff or redundant details.

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?

While the description gives a clear purpose and result limit, it omits critical details for proper use: pagination, filtering options (ncl, tipo, pedidos_vivos), and what 'pesquisa_textual' means. With 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool beyond the simplest case.

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?

The schema has 6 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description only loosely clarifies the required 'marca' parameter via 'pelo nome/termo'. The other parameters (ncl, tipo, pagina, pedidos_vivos, pesquisa_textual) are left unexplained, and the description does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 searches trademarks at INPI by name/term for prior art/conflict checking. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like inpi_marcas_processo (process lookup) and inpi_marcas_titular (owner search). The verb 'Busca' and resource 'marcas no INPI' make the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 says 'Útil pra ver se um nome de marca já está depositado ou registrado', which clearly indicates the intended use case (trademark availability/conflict checking). However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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