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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description usefully adds that the result includes schema plus revision digests and that resolution targets either an active or an immutable pinned revision, but says nothing about behavior on an unknown/expired offer_id or any auth constraints. With annotations carrying the heavy lifting, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

A single dense sentence with the action and target front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized for a two-parameter resolver, though the trailing clause about the invocation envelope packs in extra concepts without elaboration.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required, and annotations cover the safety profile. What is missing is the workflow context an agent needs to call this correctly: where an offer_id comes from (search_offers), what happens for a missing or stale digest, and any selection guidance between this and preparing an invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does: 'one active offer or an exact immutable revision' implicitly explains the optional revision_digest – supply it to pin an exact revision, omit it to resolve the active one. However, neither parameter is named or given format guidance, and the digest/identifier patterns live only in the schema $defs.

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 and resource ('Resolve one active offer or an exact immutable revision'), and the two resolution modes (live active offer vs. pinned immutable revision) give real scope precision. It does not name sibling tools like ausca_search_offers or ausca_prepare_invocation, so the differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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?

Usage is only implied: the mention that the response carries 'the schema and revision digests required to construct a valid invocation envelope' tells the agent this is a prerequisite step before preparing an invocation, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisite (e.g. obtaining an offer_id), and no named alternative.

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