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

Annotations already indicate the tool is read-only and idempotent. The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond annotations, including the special DENY_UNLICENSED_AGENT outcome, agent credential inheritance, and the communication_class return value. These details are not redundant with the structured data.

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?

The description is three concise sentences with no wasted words. The core question is front-loaded, followed by actor semantics and the return type. Every clause contributes meaningful 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?

Given the annotations, an output schema, and the description's coverage of actor classes, special cases, and return values, the definition is largely complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. The only notable gap is the lack of explicit sibling tool differentiation for selection context, which is more of a usage-guideline concern.

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%, so the description carries the full burden of explaining parameters. It gives concrete meaning to actor_class by listing brand, manufacturer, retailer, distributor, auditor, and agent, and explains how credential influences agent resolution. The credential parameter itself is explained indirectly through agent inheritance, though its exact format is not elaborated.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: identifying the actor making the request ('Who is asking?') and enumerating the supported actor classes. It includes the return type, communication_class, which adds clarity. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like resolve_jurisdiction or gate_transaction.

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 description provides useful context about valid actors and special cases, such as agents inheriting credential class and 'none returns DENY_UNLICENSED_AGENT.' It also states that the consumer is never the counterparty, which is a meaningful constraint. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to call it.

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