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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It implies a pure lookup, but never states that it is read-only/non-mutating, what happens when an identifier is unresolvable or ambiguous, or whether external hash-pinned permalinks are dereferenced (with any network/auth implications). With no output schema either, the return behavior is left entirely unstated.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb, and each clause carries information: the domain qualifier narrows scope, and the two accepted input forms plus the resolution target define the operation. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 single-input lookup tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the tool does and what inputs it accepts. It falls short on failure modes, ambiguity handling, and the shape/meaning of the resolved work and expression data, which an agent would want before invoking it in a pipeline.

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% and the single parameter is only typed as a non-empty string, so the description must compensate. It does add real meaning by naming the two accepted forms (legal-act identifier vs. hash-pinned permalink), but supplies no format, syntax, or example for either, leaving the agent to guess what a valid value looks like.

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 a specific input->output mapping: an identifier or permalink to 'the work and expression it names'. The domain scoping ('Luxembourg legal-act') is clear. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like search, browse, or citation, but the FRBR-style work/expression resolution is distinctive enough to infer separation.

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?

Usage is implied by the accepted input kinds (identifier or hash-pinned permalink): an agent understands it is the tool for turning a known reference into work/expression entities. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no routing toward alternatives such as search when only a partial reference is available.

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