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

Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral guarantee beyond them: 'Always returns candidates — never not found', telling the agent there is no empty/error path and output should be treated as a candidate set rather than a definitive hit.

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 with zero filler: what it resolves, when to call it, and the return guarantee — each sentence carries distinct information and the purpose is front-loaded.

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, so the description's 'returns candidates — never not found' note covers the essential return behavior, and the sibling reference covers routing. It would be stronger if it hinted at how candidates are shaped or how 'limit' interacts with the result set.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden for the opaque 'query' parameter, and it does by spelling out the accepted reference forms (partial id, display_id, slug fragment, title keyword). The 'limit' parameter goes unexplained in both places, keeping this short of a 5.

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 (resolve) and resource (loose reference → canonical pattern_id), and enumerates the accepted input forms (partial id, display_id, slug fragment, title keyword). It also distinguishes itself from get_requirement, which consumes the resolved id, so an agent can place it in the workflow without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly states the triggering condition ('when you have a rough reference and need the exact id before calling get_requirement') and the downstream tool to call next. It does not say when to prefer a sibling like search_patterns instead, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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