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

The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive behavior, so the description carries a lighter burden. It adds the useful detail that the result is the *bound* DID, but says nothing about behavior when no binding exists or about error/latency characteristics.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words; the examples earn their place by clarifying the two required parameters.

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 simple two-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description states what it returns (the bound DID) and illustrates the inputs. The main gap is that it does not describe the unbound/no-result case.

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 compensate, and the examples partially do: they show that 'platform' is a namespace such as github or bluesky and that 'handle' is the corresponding username. However, it does not enumerate accepted platforms or specify exact handle syntax, leaving real ambiguity for both required parameters.

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 gives a precise verb+resource: 'Resolve a platform handle to its bound DID', and the examples (github/octocat, bluesky/alice.bsky.social) make the input/output relationship concrete. This clearly distinguishes a lookup operation from sibling binding tools like wide_identity_bind.

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 word 'resolve' and the DID-lookup framing, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative. It does not say whether to use this before binding or how it relates to wide_identity_list.

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