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 covered. The description contributes the useful detail that resolution returns both the named attestation and the issuing partner (valuable since there is no output schema), but says nothing about behavior for an unknown or malformed code.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler: verb, input, and output are all packed in without redundancy.

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 single-parameter read-only lookup with a fully documented schema and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the definition is nearly complete, including what the caller gets back. The only real gap is failure behavior when a code cannot be resolved.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents it; the description only adds that the code is a 'counterparty' attestation code. That is the expected baseline when structured fields do the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb ('Resolve') on a specific resource ('a counterparty attestation code') and even states what the result contains (the attestation and its issuing partner). It does not, however, distinguish this from adjacent verification/resolution siblings such as resolve_determination or verify_anchor.

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 by the phrase 'resolve ... code' – an agent can infer this is a lookup to run once it holds a code, but there is no explicit when-to-use condition, no stated preconditions, and no signposting of alternatives for other verification needs.

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