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

With no annotations, the description discloses nontrivial behavior: agent inherits the class of the credential it presents, and a null credential produces DENY_UNLICENSED_AGENT. It also states the communication_class output domain, providing behavioral detail beyond the schema. It does not mention side effects, permissions, or rate limits, but for a pure resolution step the key edge cases are covered.

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 and front-loaded with the main action, but the dense parenthetical enumeration of classes and pathways is hard to scan. Every phrase adds information, though formatting as a list would improve readability.

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?

For a 2-parameter resolver with an output schema, the description covers the class vocabulary, agent inheritance rule, denial behavior, and return domain. It leaves 'channel' and 'referral classes' partially undefined, but the core selection and invocation semantics are present.

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 0%, but the description compensates by enumerating valid actor_class values and explaining the credential edge case ('none returns DENY_UNLICENSED_AGENT'). It does not specify the expected credential format, but the agent can infer it is a class-bearing token.

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 action ('Resolve the actor class and channel') and enumerates the exact class vocabulary, which clearly differentiates it from sibling resolve_jurisdiction. The list of actor classes and communication_class values leaves no ambiguity about the resource.

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?

No statement about when to call this tool versus alternatives such as resolve_jurisdiction or gate_transaction. The only guidance is implicit in the name and class list, so an agent must infer placement in the workflow.

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