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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about what the tool returns (definition, action links, typed relationships), but does not elaborate on behavior such as error handling, missing slugs, or rate limits. No contradiction with 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?

The description is a single sentence with a dash clause that efficiently front-loads the core action and then details the output. It is concise with no wasted words, though the em-dash separation makes it slightly verbose. Still, every part 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 simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description gives a good overview of what will be returned (definition, action links, typed relationships). It does not mention error cases, but given the simplicity and the rich annotations, this is a reasonably complete description.

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 only parameter 'slug' is fully described in the schema with examples. The description mentions 'by slug' but adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already provides. Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 resource ('ontology concept by slug'), and distinguishes the tool by its unique output: definition, action links, and typed relationships. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the 'by slug' resolution and the emphasis on action links clearly set it apart from browsing or searching the ontology.

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 usage: use this when you have a specific concept slug and need its definition plus action links and relationships. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tool (e.g., browse_ontology, search_ontology) might be more appropriate for exploratory queries.

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