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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the exact return shape and the intended use case, but it does not disclose behavior when neither slug nor hatchId is provided, which matters because the schema marks all parameters as optional.

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?

Four sentences, each carrying distinct value: what it resolves, what it returns, when to use it, and which sibling to use instead. The core action and return contract are front-loaded, and there is no 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?

For a simple read-only lookup tool, the description provides the return contract, the lookup keys, and the sibling alternative, which is strong. The main gap is the missing statement about required identifier presence and behavior on a miss, but the schema and annotations fill enough of the surrounding context.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description does not need to restate parameter definitions. It adds some semantic guidance by framing slug and hatchId as alternative lookup keys, but it stops short of clarifying that at least one identifier is expected despite required=0.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Resolve') with a clear resource ('a roost') and identifies the lookup keys: slug or hatchId. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool `list` by explicitly saying 'use `list` instead' for workspace-wide enumeration.

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 description gives a concrete when-to-use scenario: recover state across turns when the user mentions their site without giving the hatchId. It also names the alternative (`list`) and the condition for choosing it, making the routing decision explicit.

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