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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It implies a lookup/read operation but does not state whether it is read-only, what happens for ambiguous or unmatched queries, or what the tool returns. The phrase 'resolve ... against profiles' hints at the behavior but leaves the operational details undisclosed.

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 or redundant restating of the tool name. It is lean, though the brevity comes at the cost of omitted behavioral and parameter details scored elsewhere.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, the description is incomplete. It leaves unresolved how the query is interpreted, what a successful resolution looks like, and how this tool differs from the sibling tools.

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 schema description coverage at 0% and no parameter documentation in the schema, the description needed to explain what the query parameter should contain (e.g., name, ID, partial text). The one-sentence description only vaguely references 'horse identity' and never specifies the expected input format or semantics.

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') and resource ('a horse identity against Horse Truth profiles'), so an agent can tell this is an identity-lookup/disambiguation tool. It doesn't explicitly differentiate it from siblings like horse_intelligence, but the focus on identity resolution is distinct enough.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use resolve_horse versus horse_changes, horse_intelligence, or horse_rankings. No exclusions, conditions, or alternatives are mentioned, so the agent must infer the intended use case from the tool name.

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