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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, and the description adds beyond that: no account required, and the notable non-exact-match fallback that returns the closest real names. It does not describe the shape of a successful entry, but the fallback and auth context are the higher-value disclosures.

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, front-loaded with the core action, then the fallback behavior, then the auth note. Nothing redundant.

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 tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers input forms, fuzzy fallback, and auth requirements. Only the format of a returned registry entry is left implicit.

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 0% and the single required param is bare, but the description compensates by enumerating accepted identifier forms: server name, catalog id, or GitHub repository URL. It stops short of format examples (scoped names, URL variants) that would fully close the gap.

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?

Specific verb (resolve) plus a concrete resource (an MCP server name, catalog id, or GitHub repo URL to the real registry entry). The look-alike detection clause separates it conceptually from search_tools and get_tool, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 'so look-alikes and invented names can be caught' clause implies the verification use case, but it never states when to pick this over check_before_install, get_tool, or search_tools, nor any precondition such as doing this before install.

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