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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the local-policy caveat and the explicit non-assertion of safety/approval/compliance, which is meaningful behavioral context. However, it says nothing about whether the lookup is read-only, its error modes (unresolvable IDs), rate limits, or latency/network dependence, so it is incomplete for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the return shape and the caveat. Dense but no filler; the key constraint (no safety assertion) is placed at the end but still clearly stated.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description does carry return-value burden; it names checked_at, a proof link, a re-check action, and the policy caveat, which is decent but not a full shape. Combined with absent usage guidance and no read-only/error behavior disclosure on a zero-annotation tool, the definition is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 parameter includes a pattern, maxLength, and an example-rich description covering parent and child Passport forms. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 for high coverage applies.

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 (ECZ-ID via the public ECZ-ID Resolver) and describes the canonical output shape. It is distinct from siblings like get_current_state or get_resolver_link, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. With siblings such as get_current_state and get_resolver_link that could be confused with resolving an ID, the description leaves the routing decision entirely to the agent.

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