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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: free tier returns counts and previews only, full=true returns everything and costs $0.05 per call via x402 USDC on Base or a Tensorust key, including that the tool itself emits x402 payment terms. That said, it omits what happens when the name does not resolve, whether partial matches are returned, or any rate/caching behavior.

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 dense paragraph, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the tier/pricing split. Some redundancy exists between the description's 'full=true: ... $0.05 per call over x402' and the identical information in the schema, but no sentence is 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly carries the burden of describing return contents by enumeration. For a two-parameter lookup tool with 100% schema coverage and readOnly annotations, the main remaining gap is failure behavior on no-match or ambiguous names, which a resolving tool should specify.

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%, and the schema's own parameter descriptions already explain full=true, the price, x402 payment terms, and the free preview. The description largely restates that same free/full distinction rather than adding new semantics such as name-matching tolerance or acceptable name formats. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Resolve a company or organization name to its Tensorust Ontology card') and enumerates the returned content: entity type, data sources, linked objects by type, and applicable federal rules. It is clear what the tool does, though it never names the sibling search_organizations, so the boundary between resolving a known name and searching for one is left implicit.

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 free-preview vs full=true distinction gives a real decision rule, including cost, which is useful. However, there is no guidance on when to use this instead of search_organizations (finding a name) or get_object (fetching a card by id), which are the most likely confusions for an agent.

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