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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description only needs to add context. It adds that matches include a similarity score and that the tool supports disambiguation, which goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 concise, front-loaded sentences: the first states the core resolve-to-IDs behavior with examples, and the second gives the key output trait and use case. There is no filler, repetition, or extraneous detail.

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 simple two-parameter, read-only resolver with a full input schema and output schema, the description covers the necessary context: accepted input types, return concept (product IDs with similarity scores), and the intended analytical use case. Nothing essential 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 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by giving concrete example query values and clarifying that query can be a product name, category word, or SKU, which helps the agent formulate valid calls. It does not add anything about limit beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific action ('Resolve') and a concrete resource ('product name, category word or SKU... to concrete product IDs'), backed by concrete examples like 'chairs', 'oak desk', and 'CHR-01'. It clearly distinguishes this tool from the many sibling report/query tools by focusing on catalog ID resolution rather than reporting or analytics.

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 clear context: use this when natural-language product references, category words, or SKUs need to be resolved to catalog IDs for product-level basket analysis. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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