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

Since no annotations are provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It effectively communicates that the tool resolves to the 'current canonical record', implying redirect or deduplication behavior, and that it returns 'payment metadata'—a specific and useful detail. While it does not mention error handling or prerequisites, the description provides meaningful context beyond a simple 'resolve' statement.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and outcome. Every word adds value, with no fluff or repetition of schema information. It is concise yet comprehensive enough for a simple tool.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, input semantics, and high-level return contents (canonical record and payment metadata). It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, though it could be slightly stronger if it explicitly mentioned what happens on unsuccessful resolution. Overall, it is above the minimum viable standard.

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?

The input schema only defines 'identifier' as a string with length constraints, but the description defines what types of identifiers are accepted: exact identifier, slug, URL, or catalog ID. This is crucial for using the tool correctly and compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 a specific action ('Resolve'), the exact resource types accepted ('Naturepedia identifier, slug, URL, or catalog ID'), and the expected output ('current canonical record and payment metadata'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search (finding) and about (general information), which involve different operations.

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 use of the word 'exact' implies that this tool is intended for precise lookups rather than fuzzy searches, suggesting when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools like search_naturepedia or state conditions when this tool should not be used, leaving the guidance implicit rather than explicit.

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