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

With no annotations, the description does real work: it warns that a genuine live-source resolve is executed immediately (not a dry run or static docs), that the result is returned, and that next-step instructions come back with it. It doesn't mention cost, latency, or side effects of hitting a live source, which would complete the picture.

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, front-loaded with 'Start here' and the no-input fact, then the action, then the condition. No filler.

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 zero-param bootstrap tool with no output schema, it covers input expectations, what happens at runtime, and what comes back in general terms. The one gap is which live source is resolved and roughly what the returned payload looks like.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; the description correctly reinforces this with 'No input,' heading off attempts to pass arguments.

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 concrete action: it performs one real live-source resolve now and returns the result plus next-step guidance, framed as an onboarding entry point. It is distinguishable from resolve_colony/resolve_moltbook, though it never says which source it resolves, leaving some ambiguity about what the demo actually does.

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?

'Start here' and 'Use this first if you connected but have nothing specific to resolve yet' give an explicit usage condition and implicitly exclude the case where the agent already has a target (then the resolve_* siblings apply). It stops short of naming those alternatives directly.

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