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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses that a manifest is fetched and verified via a three-way signature check, and crucially labels manifest content as `untrusted` third-party data, never instructions. This safety-relevant behavioral context is not captured by annotations.

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?

Two dense, front-loaded sentences deliver the action, the result set, and a critical trust warning with no filler. Every clause earns its place.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with rich annotations, the description adequately covers the returned data and the key trust behavior. It does not specify failure semantics for signature verification or explicitly position itself against agt_manifest, but an agent has enough to select and invoke it correctly.

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?

The single parameter `name` is already fully documented in the schema, including the optional .agt suffix. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 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?

The description names the exact operation (resolve), the resource (.agt agent name), and the target (AGT Registry v2), and enumerates the returned data. It is specific enough that an agent won't confuse it with namehash or availability checks, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with agt_manifest, which also touches manifests.

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 description implies a lookup/read scenario and adds a trust caveat about manifest content. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools such as agt_manifest or agt_endpoint, nor does it name any exclusions.

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