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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the return shape (options with labels and values/IDs) and the caller-side rule to submit the ID rather than the label — a real invocation hazard it warns about.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the return shape, then the usage rule. No redundancy or padding.

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 7-parameter tool with a nested `input` object and no output schema, the description covers purpose, return shape, and the key value-vs-label rule, and the schema carries the parameter detail. It does not mention the parent-property/refresher mechanics (the `input` object) that a caller must understand, leaving a small gap.

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 100%, so all 7 parameters are already documented in the schema, including the auth/parent-dependency semantics. The description adds only field-type context (DROPDOWN, example domains) and no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Resolve dropdown options for a single piece property', refined by naming the concrete field type (DROPDOWN) and examples (Slack channels, Sheets, email labels). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the closely-named sibling ap_resolve_property_chain, so it falls short of the top band.

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?

Gives a clear use case ('Use this to discover valid values for DROPDOWN fields') plus an operational rule ('Always use the `value`... not the `label`'). It offers no when-not-to-use condition or routing to ap_resolve_property_chain, so it stops short of a 5.

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