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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says the result is a 'canon record' for a single member; it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what it returns, how unknown or invalid codes behave, or any freshness/authority semantics behind 'canon'.

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?

One sentence front-loads the resource, scope, and keying mechanism, and the examples earn their place. There is no filler or repetition.

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 one-parameter lookup tool the essential invocation data is present, but with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at least hint at return shape or error behavior to be fully complete. It also leaves the term 'canon' undefined, which may confuse an agent.

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?

The schema already documents the single code parameter at 100% coverage, but the description adds real value by specifying 'ISO-style' and giving examples (FR, AU, MX), which clarifies the expected format and namespace beyond the schema's generic 'Member code, e.g. FR'.

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 identifies a single sovereign member as the resource, keyed by ISO-style code, with concrete examples (FR, AU, MX). It is distinguishable from list_members and the other resolve_* siblings by the explicit 'single' and member scope, though it relies on the title's 'Resolve' verb rather than stating an explicit verb like 'gets' or 'returns'.

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?

It tells the reader to use this when they need the canonical record for exactly one sovereign member by code, which is clear context. However, it never explicitly contrasts it with siblings such as list_members for bulk lookup or resolve_signal for signals, so no exclusionary guidance is provided.

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