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

Goes well beyond the annotations: warns it 'SPENDS CREDIT', explains the hold-then-charge model (budget held first, only actual cost charged, `holdUsd` reports the hold), and states the write scope requirement. It does not say what happens to existing graph data when a node is re-resolved with `force`, which matters given destructiveHint=true.

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 cost warning is front-loaded in the first two words, then purpose, then mechanics, then outputs. Dense but every clause carries information an agent needs.

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, yet the description still sketches the return shape (anchor node, costUsd, pulls, visited nodes), plus cost, auth scope and idempotency behavior. For a credit-spending, destructive, open-world tool, nothing material 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 coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented, and the description largely restates them (budget range/default, force, seed types). The only added meaning is the interplay that `force` is what makes a known seed cost money. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Find who a seed is and land them in the identity graph') and enumerates the seed shapes it accepts (handle, profile URL, personal site, LinkedIn company URL, bare domain). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like identity_search or identity_estimate, which read rather than resolve.

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 concrete cost-driven usage condition: a known seed costs $0 unless `force` is set, which is exactly the decision an agent needs before calling. It does not name alternatives (e.g. identity_estimate for a cost preview, or identity_search for lookup without graph writes), so the routing guidance is 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.