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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that the record is 'public' and 'full', hinting at completeness of disclosure, but says nothing about failure behavior for unknown numbers, rate limits, or pagination.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and scope, and every clause (identifier source, record scope, returned fields) carries information. No preamble or 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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't detail return values, yet it helpfully previews the field set so an agent knows the depth of the record. Annotations cover safety and idempotency. Only the search-vs-get routing and unknown-number behavior are left implicit.

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% and the single parameter is already documented with an example ('69153') pointing back to au_search_trade_marks. The description only restates 'by trade mark number', adding no format or lookup caveats beyond the schema. 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: fetch the full public record of ONE Australian trade mark, keyed by trade mark number. The singular-record-by-identifier framing plus the enumeration of returned fields (words, kind, status, dates, owner, address) makes it unmistakable versus the bulk au_search_trade_marks sibling.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the follow-up call once it has a number from au_search_trade_marks. There is no explicit 'use this when you already have the number; use au_search_trade_marks when you don't' routing sentence, so the alternative is left to inference.

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