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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful context by noting it parses AxMenuItem XML already loaded in the KB, implying no external fetch, and by spelling out the exact return fields. This supplements annotation data without contradicting it.

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?

The description is slightly wordy but well-structured: trigger conditions are front-loaded, the cloud-safe behavior is stated, and the return contract completes it. Every sentence contributes useful selection or invocation information.

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 tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers trigger conditions, safety behavior, and return values. It does not mention not-found or error handling, but that is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 100%, so both parameters are already fully documented with names, defaults, and examples. The description adds no new parameter-level semantics, but none are needed because the schema carries the burden.

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 ('menu item'), and enumerates exactly what is resolved: target object (form/action/output), linked security privilege, label, and parameters. This is clearly distinguishable from sibling metadata tools by its menu-item-specific scope.

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 frames the trigger condition ('WHEN: developer needs to resolve a menu item') and provides common user phrasings like 'menu item info' and 'what does menu item X open'. It lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives, but the scope is narrow enough that the usage context is clear.

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