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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: name matching ignores accents and accepts either name order, and results are canonical/authority records with homonym ambiguity that resolve_entity handles.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the disambiguation advice last. Every sentence carries information the agent needs.

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 conveys what records are returned (canonical authority records) and how matching behaves. Pagination defaults are left to the schema parameter descriptions, which is acceptable for a four-parameter, order-free search.

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 75%, so schema already documents limit, keyword, and affiliation, but the description adds matching semantics not present there: input names tolerate accent variation and either word order. It does not clarify the keyword-versus-affiliation distinction, which is the only remaining ambiguity.

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 and resource ('Find canonical person authority records'), which distinguishes it from the sibling get_person (single-record fetch) and the generic search tool. The 'canonical authority record' framing tells the agent what kind of objects come back, though it does not name the sibling it differs from explicitly.

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?

It gives a concrete routing rule: 'Use resolve_entity to disambiguate homonyms,' naming an alternative tool and the condition that selects it. It stops short of saying when to use this search versus get_person for a known identifier.

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