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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations: the resolver is deterministic and its output is either a best supported next action or the minimum missing information.

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 a single, tightly-worded sentence that front-loads the action and directly states the output contract. No filler or redundant restatement of the title or schema.

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?

While the output schema and annotations cover return shape and safety, the description leaves major gaps: parameter meanings are unexplained, the required `description` field is not tied to the resolver behavior, and there is no guidance for choosing this tool over siblings. An agent would need external knowledge to invoke it correctly with rich input.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It does not explain `description`, `intent`, `productA`, `productB`, or `relationship`; it only indirectly implies that the problem text is the core input. This is insufficient for a 5-parameter tool.

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 action ('runs the deterministic problem-first resolver') and the resource ('physical-part problem'), and it says what is returned ('best supported next action or the minimum missing information'). It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the resolver framing distinguishes it from lookup/get-style siblings.

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 phrase 'problem-first' implies this tool is for describing a physical-part problem and getting a next action, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not mention alternatives like get_fit_guidance or get_compatibility. Usage context is only implied.

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