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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so safety and side-effect expectations are covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond annotations: ambiguous names return all candidates and the agent should not guess but ask the user. It does not describe output shape or limits, but for a read-only resolver this is solid added context.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does and followed by the key behavioral and usage guidance. Every clause earns its place and no filler is present.

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?

Given this is a two-parameter, read-only resolver with no output schema, the description covers the main decision points: accepted query forms, ambiguity handling, and when to use it. It is nearly complete, though it omits the purpose of 'lang' and does not fully specify the response shape for exact versus ambiguous matches.

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%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It does explain the accepted forms of the required 'query' parameter (name, alias, or explicit bucket:/group:/locality: ID), which is valuable. However, the optional 'lang' parameter is not mentioned at all, leaving one of two parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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 states a specific verb ('Resolve') and resource ('a city or region name, alias or explicit bucket:/group:/locality: ID'), making clear this is a lookup/normalization tool rather than a list or search tool. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_cities and search_venues by focusing on resolving a name/ID to canonical candidates.

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?

It gives an explicit usage rule: 'Use this before broadening a zero-result city search to its parent region,' which tells the agent when this tool belongs in a workflow. It also instructs how to handle ambiguity ('ask the user to choose rather than guess'), though it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools to use instead.

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