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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully says the trust summary is computed from records at call time, implying freshness, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what permissions are needed, or what happens with missing or multiple identifiers.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently states the action, accepted identifier forms, and output summary.

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 and no annotations, so the description should provide more invocation and return context. It outlines the return at a high level but leaves the four-parameter selection ambiguous and does not explain error behavior or identifier precedence.

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 for parameter ambiguity. It mentions agent_id, DID, and registration URL, partially mapping three of four parameters, but it never mentions the `identifier` parameter or explains precedence or requiredness.

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 an agent by ERC-8004 agent_id, DID, or registration URL. It also says what is returned: a registration summary plus a trust summary. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling trust_* tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling trust tools. It also does not explain parameter selection despite listing three identifier options, nor does it clarify that at least one identifier is needed even though the schema marks no parameters required.

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