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

Adds significant behavioral detail beyond annotations: deterministic operation ('No LLM call'), return shape (top 3 candidates, four methods, score), and meaning of empty results. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, and the description enriches this without contradiction.

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?

Three concise sentences, each with purpose: purpose, output details, and action on empty results. No filler, front-loaded with the core function.

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 read-only matching tool with no output schema, the description explains the output sufficiently (candidates, methods, score, empty meaning). It lacks explicit mention of how to interpret scores or handle multiple candidates, but that is a minor gap given the simplicity.

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% for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the purpose but adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., no additional format, constraints, or interaction details).

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Resolve') and resource ('free-text labels to existing item UIDs on a model'), and details the matching methods. This clearly distinguishes it from all siblings; no other tool matches labels to item UIDs.

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?

Provides clear context for use (import workflow) and a decision rule ('Empty candidates means the agent should create the item before importing'). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving some inference to the agent.

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