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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds the useful behavioral note that no context is loaded, but says nothing about return values, failure modes, or the effect of the contract help parameter, which is left to the schema.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise and efficient, though slightly terse and reliant on domain jargon like 'container' and 'handle'.

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-param read-only tool, the description plus schema is minimally viable. However, it does not explain what a container is, what the resolve operation returns, or when to choose this over sibling deck/context tools, so an agent is left to infer some key context.

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 100%, with both 'handle' and 'contract' already described in detail, including case-sensitivity, an example, and help-mode behavior. The description adds no paramerter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('resolve') with a specific resource ('a handle to its container') and adds a meaningful constraint ('without loading context'). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like load_deck or read_deck, and 'container' is undefined, so it is not a 5.

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 phrase 'without loading context' implies this is a lightweight alternative to operations that would load context, but the description never states that explicitly nor names alternatives such as load_deck or read_deck. Usage is therefore implied rather than clearly instructed.

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