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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that the artifact is 'authenticated' and 'first-party', which is mild extra context beyond the annotations but nothing about format, streaming behavior, or failure modes.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, but it is under-specified rather than efficient — the terse phrasing trades away meaning. Adequate minimum, no more.

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 whose only input is an undocumented jobId and with no output schema, the description should explain what is returned and how the jobId is obtained. It omits both, leaving the agent unable to use the tool confidently.

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 0% and the single required parameter (jobId) is never mentioned in the description, so it must compensate and does not. The word 'authenticated' hints at an auth context but says nothing about what the jobId identifies or where it comes from.

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 verb ('Resolve') and a resource ('research artifact stream'), so the general intent is inferable, but 'resolve ... stream' is jargon and the description never distinguishes this from close siblings like evidence_get_research or evidence_get_export_artifact. The agent gets a hint, not a crisp purpose.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. With 30+ siblings including evidence_get_research and evidence_get_export_artifact, the description gives the agent nothing to route on.

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