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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: ids are assigned once and survive renames/moves, and a removed page names its replacement. It stops short of stating failure behavior for an unresolvable or ambiguous ref.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and its accepted inputs, followed by the persistence and replacement semantics. No filler, no restatement of the title.

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 values need not be detailed, yet the description still previews them. For a three-parameter, fully-documented, read-only lookup with a closed-world annotation, nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema, including the ref formats and the summary/full detail tradeoff. The description largely restates those accepted ref forms rather than adding syntax, precedence, or ambiguity-handling rules. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does 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 names a specific verb (resolves) and a specific resource (a Craft Quantities page identified by permanent id, slug, or address), then enumerates what comes back: kind, current slug, slug history, page link, permanent /id/ link. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like fetch, search, get_calculator, and open_in_site_link.

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?

Acceptable input forms are spelled out (permanent id such as cq-c0412, current or earlier slug, or a craftquantities.com address), which implies when the tool applies. However, it never names an alternative or states when not to use it — e.g., when search or fetch would be the better route for a bare query.

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