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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses the search order (active organization first, then all accessible orgs), the rationale (never silently hide a match), and the return contents (rich rows plus active organization) for distinguishing cases. This is substantial behavioral context.

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?

The description is compact: four sentences, no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by search behavior and a clear usage directive. Every sentence adds value.

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 no output schema, the description still tells the agent what the tool returns ('rich rows plus the active organization') and explains the global-search behavior. Combined with annotations and the fully documented input schema, the agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter already documented (handle format examples and agency_id's restriction behavior). The description reinforces the fallback behavior but does not add per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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), a specific resource (Tango @handle), and a concrete output (UUID). It makes clear that handles can refer to worker, teammate, or client, and the scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like rename_handle or find_people.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use the tool: 'Use before create_task or handoff_task when you only know a name.' It also explains the search fallback behavior, so the agent understands the tool is appropriate even when the handle may belong to a different organization.

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