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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive. The description adds genuinely new behavioral detail: it returns ambiguous rather than guessing, never auto-picks candidates[0], and city-only metros fall below the auto-resolve floor. It doesn't discuss the confidence scoring model or pagination limits, but the ambiguity contract is a meaningful addition.

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?

Three tight sentences, zero filler, with the primary purpose front-loaded and routing/behavioral caveats following. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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?

An output schema exists so return-value structure need not be explained, and the description still covers the key ambiguity/return contract. Minor gaps remain around confidence semantics and what the candidate list contains, but overall complete for a resolver tool.

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 coverage is 67% and the description adds meaning to the resolution behavior tied to min_confidence ('city-only metros sit below the auto-resolve floor'), which clarifies the otherwise undocumented options.min_confidence parameter. The clues and query params are already described in the schema, so this compensates appropriately without redundancy.

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) and resource (messy team names, abbreviations, metros, aliases) and names the output artifact (Lumify team_id). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling list_teams, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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 when-to-use guidance ('Prefer this before list_teams when the string is a nickname or city token'), naming the alternative and the condition that selects it. The rule about not auto-picking candidates[0] further constrains how the caller should behave on ambiguity.

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