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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations: it discloses the two return shapes, the requirement to preserve documentSha256 and all identities, and the strict no-fallback refusal on a missing revision. That last point is the key operational behavior an agent would otherwise get wrong.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then outputs, then the identity/refusal constraints, then routing to apply_template. Every sentence carries information, though the clause 'do not invent wrapper source or reconstruct a package from a thumbnail' is dense and could be split for readability.

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?

For a 3-required-param read tool with an output schema and both annotations present, the description covers purpose, ordering relative to apply_template, failure behavior, and identity preservation. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It names all three parameters and stresses 'exact' plus the no-fallback semantic for revision, but it never explains what collection scopes over or how id/collection are obtained (e.g., from a catalog card), and the sha256 pattern only exists in the schema. Partial compensation only.

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 (resolve) plus resource (builtin component-library card) and the exact inputs used to do it, then distinguishes the two output shapes: 'canonical pinned document and source snapshots for a preset or recipe' versus 'the exact source for a definition'. This is clearly separable from siblings like preview_component, get_component_source, and repin_component.

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?

Gives explicit sequencing ('Resolve before apply_template') plus two anti-patterns ('do not invent wrapper source or reconstruct a package from a thumbnail') and a failure rule (a missing revision refuses rather than falling back to another version or scope). The agent knows both when to call this and what not to do instead.

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