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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It says what the tool resolves but not whether matching is exact or fuzzy, whether authentication is required, how multiple matches are handled, or what the result looks like.

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?

The definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to explaining the canonicalization operation.

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 simple one-parameter lookup with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core operation but leaves return shape and matching behavior unstated. It is minimally sufficient but not complete enough to set expectations for an agent consuming results.

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 sole parameter q has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. Calling it "free-form capability text" adds useful meaning beyond the bare string schema, but it does not specify format, examples, or expected length.

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 states a specific verb, "Resolve," and a concrete transformation: free-form capability text into canonical tags. It is clear enough to distinguish this from a generic capability lookup, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling get_capabilities.

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 phrase "free-form capability text" implies the input situation, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over get_capabilities or browse_tasks. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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