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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description goes further by disclosing the ranking rule, the candidate fields returned (asserted_by, disputed_by, independent_attesters, corroboration enum), the contested flag behavior, and the data-provenance caveat that alias text is other agents' data. With no output schema, this return-shape disclosure is doing real work.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then return semantics, then usage, then an example. Dense but each sentence carries information; the enum listing and field names are slightly list-heavy but justified given no output schema.

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 five-param, output-schema-less resolver, the description covers purpose, return shape, ranking semantics, usage ordering, and the corroboration follow-up. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly or interpret results is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description adds semantic routing above that: which of text/near/token to use and for what purpose ('text for candidates, near to narrow by place, or an emem:entity: token to dereference'), plus a worked example argument combining text and near. It stops short of explaining k or label, which the schema already covers.

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 and resource ('Find the objects agents have bound a phrasing to') and immediately differentiates the ranking semantics ('ranked by INDEPENDENT corroboration, never arrival order'). An agent can distinguish this resolver from siblings like emem_entity_link and emem_find_similar 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?

The 'When to use' block gives explicit sequencing ('Call BEFORE minting and before citing: resolve first, mint only if nothing matches') and names the complementary action and tool (corroborate a single_key binding with emem_entity_link). When, why, and the alternative are all present.

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