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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so no safety caveats are needed. The description adds context about the aggregate contents (license, supply, demand) but no additional behavioral traits such as rate limits, auth requirements, or edge cases. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior and followed by usage context. Every phrase earns its place; 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 read-only resolver with an output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains what is resolved, the market-picture framing, and when to use it. The only gap is not addressing the relationship to sibling tools like node_market or find_makers/find_retailers, but that is not critical for calling this tool correctly.

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 100%: the single code parameter is fully documented with format, examples, case-insensitivity, and source. The description adds no parameter details, but with full schema coverage the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action ('Resolve one node') and enumerates the result components (GS1 license, makers/supply, retailers/demand), which is far from a tautology. It frames the tool as 'the market-picture call' and 'use this first,' but it never explicitly names sibling alternatives like node_market, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 gives clear when-to-use guidance: 'use this first for "what does the market look like in X"'. It does not provide when-not-to-use conditions or name alternative tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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