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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does a good job stating the return format (npub, url, name) and the data source (upstream_authority_npub). However, it doesn't mention side effects, idempotency, or whether this is a read operation (implied by 'resolve'), leaving some ambiguity.

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 concise—three focused sentences: the first states the action, the second details the return format and data source, the third gives usage context. Every sentence adds value, no filler.

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?

Given the tool has 1 parameter, no annotations, and an output schema exists, the description covers the core behavior well. It explains the return structure, data source, and use case. The only gap is not clarifying whether this tool is idempotent or read-only, which would be nice with no annotations.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and only 1 parameter, the description adds value by implying the npub is an operator npub (via 'operator npub'), which is not stated in the schema. It also provides context that the npub is used to look up the authority. This compensates well for the lack of schema docs.

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 states the tool resolves the certifying Authority for an operator npub, using a specific verb 'resolve' and resource 'Authority'. It distinguishes well from siblings like 'register_authority' and 'resolve_service', though it could be more explicit about the distinction.

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 explicit use context: 'Use this after bootstrap to learn — and verify — which Authority signed your config, without reading GitHub.' This tells the agent when to use it (after bootstrap) and why (verifying config signing). However, it doesn't explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives.

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