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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the description only needs to add context. It adds the useful framing that resolution maps an upstream coordinate onto a canonical Hugging Bay artifact, but says nothing about what happens when nothing matches, whether resolution is cached/index-backed (relevant given openWorldHint=false despite 'upstream' wording), or what scoping `source` imposes.

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?

It is a single waste-free sentence with the verb and target front-loaded, which is good. But at this length for a five-parameter, zero-coverage tool it reads as under-specified rather than economical — brevity here costs the agent needed routing 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the read-only annotation covers safety. Still, for a five-parameter resolution tool with three competing input keys and no required fields, the description leaves the agent guessing how to construct a valid call, which is a real completeness gap despite the output-schema relief.

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 0% across five parameters, so the description bears the full burden and only partially discharges it: 'owner/repo or URL' gestures at repo and url, but q, detail (an enum with summary/full), and source are never mentioned or explained. An agent cannot tell whether q is a free-text search, an alias for repo, or a disambiguating qualifier.

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 names a specific verb (resolve) and the accepted inputs (upstream owner/repo or URL) plus the output target (a Hugging Bay artifact), so the operation is understandable without opening the schema. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings like get_artifact, search_artifacts, or find_runnable, so an agent cannot tell from the text alone why it would resolve rather than fetch.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus get_artifact or search_artifacts, and no guidance on choosing between the three lookup keys (q, repo, url) or when to set source. The only implied usage is 'you have an upstream reference', which is thin for a tool sitting in a cluster of artifact-lookup siblings.

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