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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint; description adds 'Read-only, no auth' which goes beyond annotations by confirming authentication requirements. It also discloses return fields, which is useful for caller expectations.

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 sentences, each with a distinct purpose: purpose, return values, usage context. No extraneous information, front-loaded with the primary action.

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?

Given a single parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description provides enough: it lists return fields, clarifies auth requirements, and gives usage context. An agent can call this tool correctly without needing more.

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 covers 100% of the parameter, describing acceptable input as a did:web:... or display name. The description's mention of 'by W3C DID or display name' aligns with the schema but adds no new semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

States a specific verb (look up), resource (AgentAvow entity), and method (by W3C DID or display name), and lists the returned fields. Clearly distinguishes from siblings like verify_trust by focusing on identity resolution rather than trust assessment.

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 a clear usage context: 'resolve an identity before checking its trust.' This implies a sequencing relative to trust-checking tools like verify_trust, but it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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