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

The annotations already establish that the tool is read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds valuable behavioral context by disclosing that it is paid via x402, with a starting cost of $0.02, and by indicating the kinds of resolved output returned. It does not describe pagination behavior, but the cost disclosure is meaningful beyond the annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by essential payment information. There is no filler or repetition, and every sentence adds value.

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 covers the tool's purpose, output categories, and cost, which is useful since there is no output schema. However, it omits parameter behavior, pagination, multi-file handling, and filtering semantics, leaving significant gaps for a tool with four undocumented parameters.

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 0% and the description does not mention any of the four parameters. It never explains the required files array, its path/content structure, the limit/offset pagination controls, or the symbol filter. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation in 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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource: 'Resolve' a TypeScript or JavaScript file's imports. It also names the resolved outputs (modules, bindings, aliases, source locations). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling get_importers, but the phrase 'file's imports' implies the inverse direction.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_importers, find_references, or query_code. Usage is only implied by the tool name and description.

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