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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: unknown identities are rejected, no URL is fetched, and live availability/authorization are not checked. This goes well beyond the structured annotations and gives the agent accurate expectations.

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?

The description is three tight sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by essential behavioral caveats. Every sentence earns 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 resolver with a rich output schema and full schema description coverage, the description covers all needed call semantics: input type, rejection behavior, and non-guarantees. The output schema handles return values, so nothing essential is missing.

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 schema covers the single parameter completely with constraints and a clear description ('Exact canonical service_id from capability search... Never a URL or credential'). The tool description adds little beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 clearly states the action ('Resolve an exact canonical Wever service_id'), the resource (service_id), and the result (connection metadata, contract, limits, access steps). It differentiates itself from sibling tools like search_capabilities by focusing on resolution of an already-known canonical ID rather than discovery.

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 implies when to use it: with an exact canonical service_id, and it clarifies boundaries such as 'no caller-supplied URL is fetched' and 'does not verify live availability or authorize execution.' It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the schema's 'from capability search' reference provides enough contextual guidance.

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