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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the result ordering ('match count first, then trade mark numbers') and the downstream handoff, but with an output schema present the return shape is largely redundant disclosure and it says nothing about empty result sets or the limit's effect.

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, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the output ordering and the follow-up call. No filler and nothing repeated verbatim from the schema.

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?

With annotations covering safety and an output schema covering returns, the description is essentially complete for a simple two-parameter search. Minor gaps remain: behavior when no matches are found and whether the word search is exact or partial.

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% with both parameters documented, including limit's default 25 and max 100, so the baseline is 3. The description only contributes 'by word', a mild clarification that query is textual rather than a number search, without adding syntax or matching rules (exact vs partial).

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Search Australian trade marks on the IP Australia register by word'. It also disambiguates from the sibling au_trade_mark by stating this tool returns numbers rather than the full record, so an agent can tell the two apart 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?

Establishes a clear two-step workflow ('feed one to au_trade_mark for the full record'), which is the main routing decision an agent faces here. It does not state when to avoid this tool (e.g. searching by number/owner rather than word), so it falls short of full explicit guidance.

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