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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states the operation has no side effects ('without reserving attribution or creating a sale') and that it only resolves active, public referral records. It does not detail error handling or response format, but for a simple lookup this is adequate.

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 entire description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every phrase earns its place by clarifying purpose, scope, and side effects.

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 tool with only one parameter and no output schema, the description explains what the input represents, what the tool returns conceptually, and what it intentionally avoids doing. It is missing explicit usage guidance relative to siblings, but the provided context is largely sufficient.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds domain meaning by calling it a 'direct AccordTrace referral code', but it does not explain expected format, prefix, or example values beyond the schema's min/max length constraints.

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 names a specific verb ('Resolve'), a specific resource ('direct AccordTrace referral code'), and a precise outcome ('active public referral record and disclosure'). It distinguishes itself from sale/proof-creating operations by explicitly saying it does so 'without reserving attribution or creating a sale.'

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 provides clear context: this is for resolving a direct referral code to its public record when no attribution or sale should be created. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide a 'use when...' statement, but the exclusion is strong and practical.

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