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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is already covered. The description usefully describes the result shape (matching SPOT family entries) but says nothing about the result cap or the limit parameter's behavior, so it adds only modest context beyond the annotation.

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?

Three short sentences with the core function front-loaded, followed by the usage trigger and the pairing tip. No filler or restatement of the title.

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, and the description partially compensates by characterizing the return as canonical slugs with family matches. However, ranking behavior and how the limit truncates results go unaddressed, leaving a minor gap for a search tool.

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 50%: only 'q' is self-documented, and 'limit' (default 10, max 50) has no schema description. The description mentions the free-text query concept but adds no syntax or semantics for either parameter, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (free-text query → canonical FLOPS index slugs), which is a distinct capability from the exact-lookup siblings get_index and list_indices. A concrete example ('H100 spot' → SPOT family entries) makes the transformation unambiguous.

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?

Gives a clear trigger: 'Use when you don't know the exact slug', which implicitly routes exact-slug lookups elsewhere. It also recommends pairing with get_price for a lookup+quote turn. It stops short of naming get_index as the explicit alternative for known slugs.

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