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

Beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations, the description adds significant behavior: agent inherits the class of the presented credential, null returns DENY_UNLICENSED_AGENT, and communication_class is either trade_information or public. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious runtime behavior an agent needs.

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 front-loads the core action and keeps the taxonomy in a compact list. It is dense but not wasteful, though the semicolon-heavy class listing is somewhat hard to parse at a glance.

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?

Given the output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description sufficiently covers inputs, the special agent/credential case, and the returned communication classes. No critical operational detail is missing for an agent to call this 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does this well by enumerating valid values for actor_class and explaining how credential affects resolution for the agent class. It stops short of explicitly mapping each parameter, but the semantics are recoverable.

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 first sentence names the exact operation ('Resolve') and target ('actor class and channel'), then enumerates valid actor classes and the returned communication_class. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like resolve_jurisdiction and gate_transaction.

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 implies the tool is for determining actor class and channel, and the class list gives useful context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusion criteria.

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