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. The description adds the meaningful 'No auth' detail, but says nothing about error behavior for unknown DIDs, whether credentials are filtered by issuer/status, or whether resolution hits a registry.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler; the resource and return payload are front-loaded and the auth condition is appended compactly.

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 description does sketch the return shape ('full identity document and issued credentials'), which is enough for an agent to know what comes back. For a one-parameter read tool that is close to complete, though resolution failure semantics are absent.

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 coverage is 0% and the single parameter has no description, so the description carries the burden — and it clarifies that the value may be either a DID or an agent_id, which the parameter name alone ambiguously implies. No format examples (e.g. did:key:...) are given.

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 ('DID or agent_id') plus the return payload (identity document and issued credentials). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_agent, get_passport, or whoami, which likely overlap in returning identity data.

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?

'No auth' implies this is callable without credentials, which is a real usage signal. However there is no statement of when to prefer this over get_agent or get_passport, and no mention of behavior when a DID cannot be resolved.

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