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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description need not repeat those. It adds valuable behavioral context: ranking order (exact, prefix, word match), one row per entity, typical sub-200ms performance, and role consolidation across graphs. These details go beyond the annotations and help the agent anticipate results.

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 lengthy but information-dense, with the core action front-loaded and supporting details (graphs, ranking, performance, alternative) following logically. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly tightened without losing meaning.

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 resolution tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it resolves, the graphs, ranking, performance, ordering vs get_entity, and the alternative for real estate. It doesn't describe the exact return structure, but that's acceptable given the absence of an output schema and the richness of other details.

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 most parameters have descriptions in the schema itself. The description adds minimal parameter-specific detail; it implies the 'name' parameter accepts partial words, but the schema already covers that. It does not explain 'limit' or enrich 'domain' beyond the schema's enum list. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does most of the work.

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 clearly states it resolves a firm, fund, person or company name to canonical dfx ids from a specific index, lists the covered graphs, and explicitly differentiates from resolve_organization for real estate. It names the resource (name to dfx ids) and the action (resolve), making it distinct from siblings like search_entities.

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 explicitly states 'The first call before get_entity', giving a clear ordering context, and names the alternative 'resolve_organization' for real estate. This provides both when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, leaving no ambiguity.

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