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

Annotations already mark it read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful behavior: the resolution order (person_aliases → exact name → slug → unique substring), note redaction behavior, the fact that notes are omitted unless include_notes=true, and the $0.05 cost with API key requirement. This goes well beyond the structured annotation signal.

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?

Four compact sentences, each carrying distinct information: resolution method, return preview and alternative, note behavior, and usage routing plus cost/authentication. There is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 full output schema, annotations, and 100% parameter schema coverage already present, the description adds the missing operational context: resolution strategy, redaction behavior, cost, API key requirement, and when to prefer this tool. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly appears to be 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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the resolution algorithm behind the name parameter and clarifying the include_notes parameter's redaction behavior, which enriches the schema definitions without replacing them.

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?

States a specific verb ('Resolve') and resource ('CRM person'), and specifies the input as 'a nickname or surface name'. It also distinguishes itself from get_person_photos by returning only a preview and directing the agent there for the full gallery.

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?

Explicitly says to 'Prefer this before money or relationship tools when the agent only has a nickname,' which is a clear routing rule. It also names get_person_photos as the alternative when a full gallery is needed, giving agents a direct decision path.

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