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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds a real behavioral trait beyond those: results, notably website summaries, are visible only 'when the linked account is allowed to see it.' It does not cover failure behavior for unresolved references.

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?

Two sentences, no waste, and the usage condition is front-loaded ahead of the return description. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the trigger, the identifier forms, and a return summary. The shape of the returned details is only loosely characterized, but nothing critical for invoking it 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the schema alone only shows a string-or-number union. The description fully compensates by enumerating the accepted identifier forms (business name, email, numeric ID), which is exactly the meaning an agent needs to fill crewReference.

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 ('resolves') and resource ('Crew') and specifies the return ('its details, including website summaries'). It implicitly contrasts with the sibling get_current_crew by requiring an identified Crew, though it never names that alternative.

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?

It gives a clear triggering condition: use when the user identifies a specific Crew by business name, email, or numeric ID. There are no explicit exclusions or named alternatives, so it falls short of the top tier.

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