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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: the response order (match count first, then design numbers), which tells the agent how to interpret the result before calling au_design.

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?

Two sentences, no waste, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the follow-up routing hint. Every clause carries information the agent can act on.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not needed, and both params are documented. The description covers purpose and the handoff to au_design, though a note on keyword matching scope or truncation behavior would close the remaining gap for a search tool.

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% — both query and limit are documented in the schema with defaults and max. The description adds no syntax or matching-behavior detail (e.g. whether the keyword matches titles, applicant names, or classes), so it is at the baseline for a fully documented 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Search Australian registered designs on the IP Australia register') with the matching mechanism ('by keyword'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling au_design by explaining that this tool returns design numbers and au_design expands one into a full record.

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?

Implicitly tells the agent this is the entry point for keyword discovery and explicitly routes the agent to au_design for full details, which is a clear alternative and condition. It does not cover when to prefer au_search_trade_marks or what to do when no matches are found, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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