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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds important behavioral detail beyond that: it explicitly says the tool avoids starting a session, calling a provider, and recording usage. This gives an agent confidence that invoking this tool is side-effect-free and also clarifies the nature of the operation beyond the generic hints.

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?

The description is a single, tightly written sentence that front-loads the primary function and then specifies exclusions. Every phrase earns its place with no repetition or filler.

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 simple, read-only planning tool with a fully documented 3-parameter schema and strong annotations, the description is sufficient. It even lists what is returned ('models, parameters, tools, and setup reasons'), which compensates for the lack of an output schema.

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%, with each parameter (model, panel, query) having its own clear description. The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so a baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the specific verb 'Resolve' and the resource: 'effective Council models, parameters, tools, and setup reasons for this account.' It also distinguishes itself from execution tools like run_council by noting it does so 'without starting a session, calling a provider, or recording usage.' This makes the tool's purpose immediately identifiable.

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 description conveys a clear planning/read-only context and implies this should be used before actually invoking a Council session, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools such as run_council or recommend_panel or list when-not-to-use conditions. The context is clear, but explicit exclusions are absent.

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