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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so no safety contradiction exists. The description adds that resolution may return each record with its serving node, which is useful context, but it does not disclose match behavior, multiplicity, or failure semantics beyond that.

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 dense, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase earns its place by defining the action, acceptable inputs, and the return shape.

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 single-parameter, read-only lookup with full schema coverage and an output schema present, the description is nearly sufficient. It is missing only a brief pointer to when a sibling tool should be used instead, which is already reflected in the usage dimension.

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% and the input schema already describes identifier types and case-insensitivity. The description mostly restates the accepted identifier forms, adding no significant new parameter semantics beyond the target resource, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific action ('Resolve') and a concrete resource ('family-office records'), and it lists the accepted identifier forms (LEI, legal name, alias, register id). It is clear on its own, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as get_record or list_aliases.

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 use case is implied: call this when you have an identifier and need the family-office records and serving nodes. However, it never states when to prefer get_record, list_aliases, or list_nodes, and gives no exclusions or alternative conditions.

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