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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the returned artifacts (current slug plus citable URL) and the rename-recovery behavior, which annotations do not convey.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by the recovery guidance and an inline example. Every element is relevant; the inline JSON example is slightly redundant with the schema but aids quick invocation.

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?

With one required parameter, rich annotations, and an output schema covering return values, the description gives enough to call it correctly. It does not need to explain the response format further; only explicit sibling routing is missing.

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 100% and the param description already enumerates canonical peak:id, Wikidata Q ID, OSM ID, slug and translated name. The description reinforces this list and adds a concrete example, so it adds modest but real meaning beyond 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 states a specific verb (resolve) and resource (peak), and enumerates accepted identifier forms plus what it returns: current slug and citable URL. This clearly distinguishes it from get_peak or search_peaks in spirit, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 a concrete usage scenario — 'Use canonical IDs to recover from renamed slugs' — and an example invocation, which tells the agent when this applies. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating exclusions, which keeps it below a 5.

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