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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return value (canonical /id/ URL plus current title), which is genuinely useful with no output schema, but it never states that the operation is read-only, what happens if a ref fails to resolve, or any auth requirements.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb first and the syntax enumeration inline. No filler or redundancy.

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 lookup tool with no output schema, the description covers what goes in (five ref forms) and what comes out (canonical URL and title). Only the failure/not-found behavior is left unaddressed.

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 only parameter is an opaque string. The description compensates by enumerating five accepted ref formats with concrete examples ([[t:id]], [[th:hash8]], [[w:topic/page]], [[a:handle]], [[r:revhash]]), which is real semantics beyond the schema — though it doesn't explain what each prefix denotes.

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 ref or id) and names the output (canonical /id/ URL and current title), so the operation is unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with ref-consuming siblings like get_topic or get_source, so it stops short of the sibling-differentiation bar.

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 accepted input forms imply when this is useful (you have a ref/id and want the canonical URL/title), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternative named. Usage must be inferred from the input grammar.

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