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

With readOnlyHint/openWorldHint already declared by annotations, the description adds a genuine behavioral fact: non-exact input returns nothing and enumeration is out of scope. It does not describe the shape of a successful result, which matters since there is no output schema.

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, purpose front-loaded before the negative constraint. The second sentence is slightly redundant ('no results' / 'never enumerate') but earns its place as a hard guardrail.

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 one-parameter read-only tool the essentials are present, but with no output schema and thin parameter docs, an agent still doesn't know what a resolved mention looks like or what error/empty responses return.

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 coverage is 0% and the single 'query' parameter has no description or format constraint in the schema. The description only loosely implies the accepted value ('link or exact ID'), leaving the 300-character bound and accepted link formats undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb (resolve) and resource (a saved-plan link or exact ID), plus the consumer context ('desktop mention picker'). It does not name the sibling it supersedes (e.g., get_plan), so differentiation is inferred rather than explicit.

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?

Gives a clear when-to-use condition ('explicitly supplied ... link or exact ID') and a when-not ('empty or general searches return no results; never enumerate plans'). It doesn't point the agent to an alternative tool for general searches, which would have made this a 5.

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