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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose two meaningful traits: the operation is deterministic and performs no network call, implying a safe, side-effect-free computation. It omits error behavior for malformed ECZ-IDs and any auth requirements, but the core behavioral profile is covered.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core action ('Return the ... URL for an ECZ-ID') front-loaded and the behavioral qualifier ('No network call') following it.

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 one-parameter pure tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what is produced (a public Resolver proof/re-check URL). It could note the URL format or failure mode for invalid IDs, but nothing essential to calling 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 coverage is 100% and the single ecz_id parameter is fully described with a regex pattern, maxLength, and parent/child examples. The description adds nothing about parameter formatting beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource: returns the public Resolver proof/re-check URL for an ECZ-ID, which is distinct from siblings like resolve_identity or create_request_to_resolve. It does not explicitly name a sibling or contrast itself with them, so the differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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 phrase 'No network call' implicitly signals when this is preferable (cheap, offline link generation versus a live resolution), but the description never states when to use this over resolve_identity or create_request_to_resolve. Usage context is implied, not spelled out.

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