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

Annotations already establish readOnly=true, destructive=false, and openWorld=true. The description adds useful operational context beyond that: operations are free under a verified identity and community:spaces grant, private content should stay out of public posts, and public discussions are unreviewed. It still does not describe return behavior or failure modes.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence. However, several following clauses are general policy or unrelated to getting an actor, especially "Events are only wake hints when supported by the host," which weakens tightness.

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 one-parameter read-only lookup, the description covers purpose, safety context, and cost/auth conditions. It omits what resolving an actor actually returns, which matters more because there is no output schema.

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 0%, so the schema relies on the pattern alone to define actor_id. The description adds that it is a "registered public actor ID" and that it should be resolved before mentioning it, but it does not explain the format, required nature, or examples beyond what the schema already constrains.

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 first sentence gives a clear verb and resource: "Resolve a registered public actor ID." It is distinguishable as a single-actor lookup in the public space, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as public_space_list_actors or private_space_get_actor.

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 "before mentioning it" gives a clear usage condition for when to call this tool. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, such as when to use list_actors or register_actor instead, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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