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

No annotations, so the description bears the full burden. It declares the operation is non-inferential (no risk/safety/compliance), which usefully sets expectations about output scope. But it doesn't state read-only explicitly, latency, auth requirements, or what happens for unknown/stale IDs — for a no-annotation tool, that leaves gaps.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope. The exclusion clause ('No risk/...') is the second sentence and earns its place by preventing the agent from over-reading the output.

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 single-param read tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. The main missing piece is disambiguation from get_resolver_link, which shares the 'Resolver link' surface and is not addressed.

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 coverage is 100% — the ecz_id parameter is fully documented with a pattern and examples of parent vs child Passport IDs. The description adds nothing about parameters, which is acceptable given the schema does the work; baseline 3.

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 and resource ('Return the narrow current Resolver-derived state for an ECZ-ID') and enumerates the returned fields (state, checked_at, Resolver link). It's clearly a read of current state, distinguishing it from mutation siblings like create_request_to_resolve, though it doesn't explicitly name which sibling to use instead of get_resolver_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?

There's an implicit scope constraint ('narrow', 'No risk/safety/compliance inference'), which tells the agent what NOT to expect, but no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternative. The closest sibling, get_resolver_link, overlaps on the 'Resolver link' concept and isn't disambiguated.

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