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

The annotation already marks the tool as readOnly. The description adds valuable behavioral detail by explaining the resolution cascade and that each header includes its source, which goes beyond the annotation.

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 concise and well-structured: it states what the tool returns, how it resolves headers, and how it differs from the sibling tool. No unnecessary words or redundant information.

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?

The description provides enough context for correct usage, including the required project context and the distinction from get_header_policies. It does not describe return format, but that is not essential given the tool's straightforward purpose.

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?

Both parameters are documented in the schema with clear 'Public ID' descriptions, achieving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds general context about resolving headers but does not materially clarify the individual parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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?

Clearly states the tool fetches resolved headers for a single endpoint response, and explicitly distinguishes it from get_header_policies which covers a whole endpoint grouped by status code. The verb 'get' and resource 'resolved headers' are specific and unambiguous.

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 explains the key differentiator from get_header_policies and notes that project context is required. This gives an agent enough guidance to select this tool over the closely related sibling.

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