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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond them: matching is deterministic, the result carries trust/safety/access metadata, and nothing is executed. It is silent, however, on the two allow_* flags that gate binding actions and external effects, which are the most behaviorally loaded inputs.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the usage condition front-loaded and the non-execution caveat placed last where it does the most routing work.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully sketches the return categories (capability match plus trust, safety and access metadata). But for a five-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, leaving the two permission-style booleans undocumented is a meaningful completeness gap.

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% and the description explains none of the five parameters. 'Arabic or English' loosely gestures at locale and the metadata phrase loosely gestures at the allow_* flags, but allow_binding_action and allow_external_effect are unexplained despite sounding like permission escalations, and limit/intent receive no treatment at all.

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 operation (a deterministic capability match returned with trust, safety and access metadata) rather than restating the name 'resolve'. The closing line 'This does not execute the capability' clearly separates it from an invoke-style sibling, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

'Use this when the user describes a Saudi service goal in Arabic or English' gives a clear triggering condition, and 'before invocation' establishes the ordering relative to execution. It never names the alternative tool an agent should call instead when the goal is to actually execute, so the routing is only implied.

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