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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety and network profile is covered. The description adds that it queries named external authorities, which reinforces the open-world nature, but says nothing about rate limits, caching, failure modes, or how results from multiple authorities are merged.

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 front-loaded sentence with the verb first and no filler. The authority list is long but each entry maps to a real source enum value, so it earns its place rather than padding.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and all five parameters are schema-documented. What remains thin is the decision guidance for choosing between this tool and the other lookup_* siblings, which is the only substantive gap for a five-parameter, nested-object tool.

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%, so the enum values for 'source' and the command-style syntax for 'query' are already documented in the schema; the description's list of authorities largely restates the enum. No additional meaning is added for 'limit' or the nested _subject/_files objects, 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?

The description opens with a specific verb ('Resolve') and a concrete resource set (ontology term, pathway, cell type, antibody RRID), then enumerates the eight authorities it covers. That scope makes it distinguishable from sibling lookups such as lookup_gene, lookup_protein, or lookup_compound, though it never names those siblings explicitly to draw the boundary.

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?

Usage is only implied: by listing OLS, QuickGO, Reactome, KEGG, Rfam, CellGuide/PanglaoDB and Antibody Registry, an agent can infer when this tool applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no named alternative for adjacent tasks (e.g. gene or protein lookup).

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