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

Annotations already establish readOnly/openWorld=false/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the DENY_UNLICENSED_AGENT failure path when no credential class is present, the inheritance rule for agents, and the communication_class outcome. That failure-mode disclosure is genuinely useful for an agent.

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?

Dense but compact, using parentheticals to pack scoping rules into a few sentences with little waste. The 'Who is asking?' opener is a touch informal but front-loads the intent efficiently.

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 the return values need not be explained, yet the description still names communication_class and its two values. Combined with the failure path, enumerated actor classes, and trade/consumer scoping, it covers most of what an agent needs for a 2-parameter identity 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it partially does: the enumerated actor classes effectively document the actor_class values, and 'the class of the credential it presents' hints at the credential parameter's role. It still gives no format or syntax guidance for credential, so it only partly compensates for the coverage gap.

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 opening 'Who is asking?' plus the full enumeration of actor classes (maker, brand owner, private label, distributor, importer, broker, retail buyer, auditor, agent) makes it clear this resolves the requester's identity class. It is specific about the resource, though it never names or contrasts a sibling such as resolve_jurisdiction, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives; it never says 'call this before gate_transaction' or similar. Fragments like '(trade only)', 'auditor (read-only)', and 'The consumer is never the counterparty' are scoping facts, not routing instructions, so usage is only weakly implied.

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