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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context: it resolves to fixed sources and performs no network retrieval. It does not disclose what happens for an unresolvable topic or whether results are cached/stable across calls.

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 dense sentence with the action front-loaded and the key negative constraint (no fetching) placed where it does the most routing work. No filler.

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 no output schema, the agent must infer what a resolution actually returns — presumably source identifiers or URLs per topic — and the description never says so, nor does it address partial failure when some topics do not resolve. Adequate for a one-parameter tool, but the return contract 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 description coverage is 0% and the single parameter is an enum array of eight topics, so the schema carries the value list without prose. The description's "one or more" correctly signals the array/multi-topic semantics but adds no meaning about topic granularity or whether topics map one-to-one to sources.

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"), a resource ("financial research topics"), and the output type ("fixed public raw-JSON sources"). The phrase "without fetching them" implicitly separates it from the sibling financial_evidence_fetch, though it never names that sibling directly.

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 clause "without fetching them" tells the agent this is the routing/planning step and that retrieval belongs to a different tool, which is clear context for choosing between this and financial_evidence_fetch. It stops short of an explicit when/when-not statement or naming the alternative.

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