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

'No write. Idempotent.' merely restates the annotations and earns no credit, but the description adds genuine return-shape detail absent from annotations: resolved provenance, and the fact that an Articles pointer also returns the discussion thread with entry_number. With no output schema, that disclosure is the only place an agent learns what comes back.

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 verb and pointer formats, with no filler. The trailing 'No write. Idempotent.' duplicates the annotations and is the one sentence that does not earn its place.

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 single-parameter, read-only, non-destructive tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, this covers purpose, resolution semantics, and return shape adequately. The only notable gap is that the campaign/{id} pointer form accepted by the schema is never described.

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 already documents the pointer formats, so the baseline applies. The description adds meaning about what each form resolves to ('paper/{id} is a bibliography row', Articles pointer yields a thread), but it omits the campaign/{id} form that the schema explicitly lists, leaving the guidance slightly inconsistent with the parameter definition.

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 ('a pointer'), enumerates the accepted pointer forms (A{n}, seq/{n}, paper/{id}), and explicitly scopes out whole-file retrieval. This lets an agent distinguish it from get_file or read_articles without opening a schema.

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 phrase 'never a whole file' implicitly routes the agent away from file-level tools, and the pointer examples hint at which sibling areas (articles, messages, papers) are involved. However, it never names an alternative tool or states an explicit when-to-use condition, so the routing is inferred rather than stated.

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