Filing Readiness Summary

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

Annotations already provide key behavioral traits (read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds context about the output structure (e.g., 'decision-focused block' with specific components) and mode differences ('full' vs 'quick'), but does not disclose additional traits like rate limits, auth needs, or data sources. No contradiction with annotations.

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 a single, dense sentence that efficiently lists all key output components without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (decision-focused readiness assessment) and rich annotations, the description is largely complete. It outlines the output structure in detail, though without an output schema, it could benefit from more specifics on return format. However, it adequately covers purpose and context, balancing well with the provided structured data.

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%, providing clear documentation for both parameters ('brand_name' and 'mode'). The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, mentioning 'check mode' differences but not elaborating on implications. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('Return a decision-focused filing readiness block') and resources ('filing readiness block'), listing key components like verdict, filing risk, conflicts, evidence links, confidence, and missing categories. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on a comprehensive readiness summary rather than individual checks or comparisons.

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 implies usage for decision-making on filing readiness, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'brandomica_check_trademarks' or 'brandomica_compare_brands'. It provides clear context for readiness assessment but lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives.

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