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

The description goes beyond the openWorldHint annotation by stating it uses an internal registry, returns standardized names, and mentions pricing per run (though that's also in the description). It doesn't disclose failure behavior (e.g., no matches), but the output schema presumably handles that. The description adds value by explaining the transformation from natural language to standard form, but with the annotation present, a 4 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?

The description is two sentences plus a pricing note, concise and packed with specific information. It front-loads the core purpose and doesn't waste words. Every sentence adds value: the first explains the function, the second provides pricing transparency.

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?

With a single parameter, detailed schema, and an output schema present (per context signals), the description covers the essential reasoning for using this tool. It doesn't describe edge cases like no matches or error handling, but for a resolution tool with a well-documented schema, it's adequately complete. A 4 reflects that it's nearly complete but could briefly mention what happens with no matches or ambiguous inputs.

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 input schema already has detailed description for the 'text' parameter, covering examples and the use case. The description adds that it resolves 'natural-language' and returns 'standardized region names', which slightly complements it. Since schema coverage is 100% and the parameter docs are rich, the description adds marginal but useful context, elevating it above baseline 3 to a 4.

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 clearly states the tool resolves natural-language region names against an internal geography registry and returns standardized names, distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_company_candidates and various data-query tools. The verb is specific (resolves/search), and the resource (geography registry) is named.

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 explicitly mentions 'for downstream agent and MCP tool consumption', which indicates when it's a prerequisite stage. It also notes it handles aliases and abbreviations, implying it's used for normalization. While it doesn't name direct alternatives, the sibling list shows search_company_candidates as a parallel for companies, and the tool's input description clarifies its intended use case, which is sufficient contextual guidance.

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