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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: the exact error contract ({ error: 'unknown_id' }) for unrecognized ids and for note ids on unbound connections, which an agent cannot infer from 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?

Three sentences, each carrying distinct information (what it resolves, error behavior, intended client), with the core purpose front-loaded. Dense but nothing is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description fully specifies the returned record shape ({ id, title, text, url, metadata }) and the failure shape. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile, nothing an agent needs to call this correctly 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 sole param is documented, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by revealing the id's expected format ('deal:<id>' or 'note:<id>'), which the schema does not state, materially improving correct invocation.

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 (one id returned by search, a deal or note) and distinguishes it from the sibling `search` by making clear this is the reverse lookup that returns full records rather than ids. An agent can tell exactly what this does.

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?

Clearly frames the tool as the fetch half of a search/fetch pair and names the client mode that needs it (ChatGPT chat connector), and the id is stated to come from `search`. It stops short of an explicit 'do not use this to search' exclusion, but the routing context is strong.

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