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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by positioning the tool as a pre-step that confirms entity identity before other tools run, which is workflow context an agent cannot get from annotations.

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: the capability and its output fields come first, then the trigger conditions. The trailing 'Args: query.' is mildly redundant but costs almost nothing.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no prose, annotations cover the safety profile, and the one parameter is fully documented. Purpose, triggers and workflow placement are all present; nothing needed to invoke 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 description coverage is 100% and the single 'query' parameter is fully documented in the schema itself. The description only echoes it with 'Args: query.' and adds no syntax or format detail, so the baseline 3 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 (ticker, company name or CIK) and names the exact canonical output fields (name, ticker, CIK, FIGI). No sibling tool does entity resolution, so the agent can distinguish it immediately from answer, compare, or get_filings.

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 concrete trigger phrasings ('which company is X', 'what's the ticker for X', 'is X listed') plus sequencing guidance to run it before other tools. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative or a when-not-to-use case, so it falls just below the top band.

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