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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: the cost (10 Zooq credits) and the fact that it returns a stable institution ID, which is useful for downstream operations. This is meaningful added behavioral and practical context.

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 compact: three sentences that front-load the purpose, state the workflow dependency, and provide the cost. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant fluff or repetition of the schema. This is an exemplary concise structure.

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 one required parameter, a fully documented schema, a rich set of annotations, and an output schema, the description covers all necessary context. It also adds the important operational detail about credit cost. An agent has everything it needs to call this tool correctly.

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?

The input schema already provides a full description of normalized_name, including format ('lowercase, hyphenated') and how to discover it ('via search_schools'). Since schema description coverage is 100%, the description adds little beyond what the schema states. It reinforces the prerequisite but does not meaningfully extend parameter semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('Resolve') and a clear resource ('one institution by its normalized name'), and specifies the exact return fields (school name, url, stable inst_id). It implicitly distinguishes itself from search_schools by instructing the agent to obtain the normalized_name there first, leaving no ambiguity about this tool's narrow 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?

The description clearly states the prerequisite workflow: 'Get the normalized_name from search_schools first.' This tells the agent when this tool is appropriate—after search_schools has produced the normalized name. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternative tools for when this tool should not be used, but the intended 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.