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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so safety and idempotency are covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond that: a 25-distinct-id resolution cap per call, the remaining_reference_nos overflow channel, the not_found bucket for unresolvable ids, and order preservation of results.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose before the batching caveat and the not_found/ordering notes. No filler and no repetition of the title.

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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what it resolves, what to feed it, the per-call limit, and how to interpret overflow and misses.

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% and the parameter's description already states the source field, repeat handling, the 500 accepted cap, and the 25-distinct resolution limit. The description largely restates those same facts rather than adding syntax or format meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (PBDB reference_no values) and names the exact output (full citations with authors, year, title, publication, volume, pages, DOI). It also anchors the resource to sibling outputs — reference_no on paleobiology_search_occurrences and paleobiology_search_collections rows — so an agent can tell it apart from every other tool in the set.

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?

Gives clear operating context: pass the ids from a page of rows in one call, and handle overflow via remaining_reference_nos in a follow-up call. It does not explicitly name a when-not condition or an alternative tool, but no sibling performs reference resolution, so the routing guidance is effectively complete.

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