Probably Not, These Features Were Added In The Movies
In the books, there is no mention of these type of embellishments. There are only two features: the type of wood and the core (see here and here):
WANDS - Made from various kinds of wood, containing a core from substances such as dragon heartstring, unicorn hair or phoenix feather. (Pottermore factsheet)
The absence of peculiar features makes sense given that the owner is not known when the wandmaker creates the wand. Although the wand-making art is never explored in detail, I would argue that later changes made by the owner would count as damages. First, there is no such thing as a part-time wandmaker. Second, wands are not entirely inanimate. JKR said
Essentially, I see wands as being quasi-sentient, you know? ... They're not exactly animate but they're close to it.
In the movies, they made a diverging artistic decision:
Each wand in the Harry Potter films was developed with its fictional owner in mind.
The wands in the movies were meant to mirror the characters' physical appearance and/or personality traits - and probably to make the merchandise more attractive to fans. In fact, embellishments were not confined to the Death Eaters, as you can see on the dedicated Pottermore page.
Alecto Carrow's wand is a good example of this book/film inconsistency since the skull wand is different from the one in "Harry Potter: The Wand Collection", which has no character-specific embellishments (see here).
Also on the character-specific Pottermore pages, there is no mention of embellishments of their wands. As in the case of Lucius Malfoy, you can only read:
Eighteen inches, elm, dragon heartstring. After the Battle of the Seven Potters he began using an unknown wand.