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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds valuable behavioral context: matches are pre-ordered via Akkru smart ranking but the order is a recommendation only, and duplicate_root_fact_ids lists alternative fact_ids for the same logical fact. This goes beyond annotations and helps the agent interpret results correctly.

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 but remains readable and front-loads the core purpose. It packs in scoping, defaults, pricing, and an API reference without excessive wordiness. It could be split into two sentences for readability, but every clause adds information and nothing is redundant.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description must convey return structure and usage constraints. It explains that each match is a root with axis-grouped slice facts and mentions duplicate_root_fact_ids, giving an agent enough to interpret the response. It also covers scoping and pricing. It is not exhaustive (e.g., no detailed example of the response JSON), but it is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the alternative scoping relationships (filing_id vs ticker + fiscal_year), the default for recursive, and the purpose of duplicate_root_fact_ids (though it's an output, not a param). It clarifies how parameters interact, which is useful beyond the individual field descriptions.

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 states a specific verb ('Resolve') and resource ('line-item name') and clearly defines the output ('dimensional breakdown of every consolidated fact'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling get_dimensional_breakdown_by_fact_id by explicitly scoping to line items, leaving no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 provides clear scoping rules ('filing_id OR ticker + fiscal_year (+ optional quarter)') and notes that recursive defaults to true. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the scope and prerequisites are well-defined, and the note about reviewing multi-concept matches gives usage advice. Slightly short of an explicit 'use this when' statement.

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