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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds genuinely useful behavior: active-org-first search, global fallback, and that the response includes the active organization so callers can tell 'no match here' from 'no match anywhere.' It does not discuss rate limits or result shape details, but for a read lookup this is substantive added 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?

Front-loaded with the core verb/resource and the UUID output, then the fallback behavior, then the usage cue. The two clauses explaining the fallback ('never silently hidden' and 'distinguish no match here from no match anywhere') are mildly redundant, but every sentence still carries information.

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, so the description correctly compensates by describing the return ('rich rows plus the active organization'). Combined with the 100% schema coverage and read-only annotations, an agent has nearly everything needed; only the precise return fields remain unspecified.

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%, so both parameters (handle with its '@hermes'/'hermes' example, and agency_id with its 'skips the global fallback' note) are already fully documented in the schema. The description's mention of org-scoping behavior restates what the agency_id schema field says, adding no syntax or semantics beyond it.

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 (@handle) plus the entity types covered (worker, teammate, client) and the output (UUID). This is clearly distinct from write operations, but it never contrasts itself with the nearby sibling find_people or rename_handle, which is the ambiguity a reader would want resolved.

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?

Explicitly names the trigger and the downstream consumers: 'Use before create_task or handoff_task when you only know a name.' That is concrete routing guidance, though it stops short of stating when not to use it (e.g., when you already have a UUID).

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