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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description is not required to restate safety. It adds useful registry context such as Era 1 founding standing, Era 2 mint-on-activation capacity, and the SM-ECO-10060 reference, but it does not describe operational behavior like result shape, errors, or registry lookup semantics, leaving it at a solid but not rich level.

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 one compact sentence with no filler and includes meaningful registry-scope details. It is slightly front-loaded toward registry context rather than the verb/action, but it earns its place by clarifying the two registry variants.

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?

The tool has only one optional parameter, detailed schema documentation, explicit annotations, and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. Combined with the registry-context sentence, the definition is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, though it could still briefly note when to prefer this over sibling resolvers.

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 input schema fully documents the single optional parameter with a detailed format for Era 1 and Era 2 IDs plus the omit-for-summary behavior, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter explanation beyond that, which matches the baseline score for high schema coverage.

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 title 'Resolve scoped agent' and the parameter description 'Scoped agent id to resolve' together make the core action clear, and the description identifies the resource as the GSC Scoped Agents Registry across Era 1 and Era 2. However, the description itself does not use a strong action verb or explicitly differentiate this from sibling resolve tools like resolve_gtin or resolve_node, so it stops short of 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 parameter schema gives useful guidance: provide a scoped agent ID to resolve or omit the parameter for the registry summary, which gives implied usage context. There is no explicit statement about when to choose this tool over the related resolver siblings, so the usage guidance remains mostly implicit rather than fully explicit.

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