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

Annotations already establish a safe, idempotent, closed-world read, so safety needs no restating. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: only exact canonical wording or its full explicit negation is certified, while lexical candidates and changed qualifiers are left unresolved — this outcome rule is valuable context an agent cannot get from the 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?

Three short sentences: purpose first, then the certification rule, then the scope exclusion. No filler, no restatement of the tool name, and each sentence contributes a distinct constraint.

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 one-parameter, read-only, idempotent tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does, which inputs resolve, and what it does not consult. The main remaining gap is the lack of any contrast with the sibling check_gi_claim, which an agent must resolve on its own.

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 single required 'claim' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds that the input is a 'proposition' and that the preserved canonical wording form is what gets certified, but it never states the expected format, length, or normalization requirements of the claim string.

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 scope: 'Resolve one supplied proposition against governed claims,' which tells the agent it is a resolution/certification operation over an existing governed corpus. It is somewhat jargon-heavy ('governed claims', 'certified') and never names or contrasts with the nearby sibling check_gi_claim, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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 line 'Does not search external evidence' is an explicit when-not boundary, implying this is a closed-corpus lookup rather than an evidence search. However, it names no alternative tool and gives no positive trigger for choosing resolve_gi_claim over check_gi_claim or get_gi_verification, so usage remains largely implied.

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