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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses authentication/payment requirements (bearer token or per-call fee), the 25-name limit, and the return behavior: an entry for known names or candidates for unknown/ambiguous ones. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but 'resolve' and the described outcome make side effects unlikely.

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?

Only two sentences, with no filler. The first sentence is dense with detailed payment options, but that information is necessary given the absence of annotations. The second sentence efficiently conveys the core operation and item format. It could be more compact, but every part earns its place.

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?

The output schema is present, so return values need no elaboration. The description covers authentication/payment, batch limits, input item shapes, and unknown/ambiguous handling. For a batch lookup tool with this complexity, an agent has everything needed 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?

The schema already covers the names parameter at 100%, setting a baseline of 3. The description adds value by clarifying each item can be a plain name or an object with namespace and venue, and by pointing to lexicon_resolve's hints for richer meaning. This goes slightly beyond the schema's own description.

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 and resource: 'Resolve up to 25 argument names against the ChainHelix Agentic Lexicon in one call.' It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling lexicon_resolve by emphasizing the batch nature and explicitly referencing lexicon_resolve's hints, so an agent can tell them apart.

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 batch context is clear: 'up to 25 ... in one call' implies use when resolving multiple names, and the reference to 'the same hints as lexicon_resolve' links to the single-item alternative. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide a direct when-to-use comparison.

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