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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: 'Never returns PII,' 'Free L0, no authentication required,' and the surprising edge-case behavior where an artefact address is echoed back rather than looked up (making an empty result expected). The one minor gap is no mention of pagination or rate limits, though this is a single-value lookup.

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?

Front-loads purpose and the primary usage directive, then layers edge cases. It is longer than strictly necessary and the tail about minting a credential via register_autonomous_challenge/register_autonomous is somewhat tangential, but nearly every sentence carries operational value for correctly calling the 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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly enumerates return contents (canonical form and kind). Combined with the usage directive, edge-case handling, PII guarantee, and auth posture, an agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret the call correctly.

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 the single 'query' parameter is fully documented with accepted forms, case-insensitivity, and length limits. The description's mention of accepting handles or alter: addresses largely restates the schema, so the baseline 3 applies with no meaningful addition beyond the structured field.

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 (resolve) and resource (~handle), and precisely defines what resolution produces: canonical handle, kind (system/personal/role_alias), and addressability. It distinguishes itself from the sibling verify_identity, which it explicitly names as a different operation.

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?

Explicitly prescribes usage: 'Use this as your first call when you have a handle and need to confirm it exists before calling other tools.' It also names the alternative (verify_identity) and the condition that selects it (reading what the field holds about a handle), plus the credential prerequisite and the two-call path to obtain one.

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