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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: empty or general searches return no results, and it never enumerates plans. This tells the agent exactly what input is required and what failure looks like, which 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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and constraints. Every clause earns its place: the purpose, the accepted input types, the failure condition, and the enumeration prohibition.

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 resolution tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description covers what to pass and what happens on invalid input. It does not describe the return shape (e.g., what a resolved plan or mention looks like), but the context and failure semantics are sufficient for typical use, leaving only a minor gap.

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?

With a single query parameter and zero schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden. It specifies that the query must be an explicitly supplied lesgooo saved-plan link or exact ID, which is essential semantic information not present in the schema. It does not give format examples, but it compensates well for the coverage gap.

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 ('lesgooo saved-plan link or exact ID') and clarifies the context ('for the desktop mention picker'). It implicitly separates itself from general search or enumeration tools by stating that empty or general searches return no results and that it never enumerates plans. However, it does not name a sibling tool (e.g., get_plan) to explicitly differentiate itself, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 clear when-to-use guidance: only with an explicitly supplied link or exact ID. It also provides an explicit when-not-to-use condition: empty or general searches return no results and it never enumerates plans. No alternative tool is named, but the context is sufficiently clear for an agent to avoid misuse.

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