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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds a key behavioral guarantee: every capability is returned with both its evidence and limitation, and the tool cannot return one without the other. This goes beyond the annotations and provides useful context about the return structure.

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 two concise sentences that front-load the primary action and the critical pairing invariant. Every word serves a purpose, with no filler or redundancy.

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 description explains the core lookup modes and the mandatory return pairing, which is the most important behavior. It does not explain the limit parameter or potential multiple results for topic searches, and there is no output schema to fill that gap. This leaves a minor ambiguity but the tool is still adequately described.

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 id and topic, with 67% coverage. The description mostly restates the id formats (C-nn, L-nn) already present in the schema, and it does not clarify the limit parameter, which has no schema description. The description adds little beyond the schema for parameter understanding.

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 uses the specific verb 'Resolve' and identifies the resource as a capability from the claims ledger. It clearly outlines the three lookup modes (by id, by limitation id, or by topic), making its purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like check_job and search_docs.

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 clear context on when to use id versus topic lookup ('when the id is unknown'), which is a usage guideline. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool relative to sibling tools, so it lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons.

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