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 without description help. The description adds some behavioral context by specifying the possible return shape ('supported solution' or 'next required observation'), but it does not explain what 'canonical resolver' means or what triggers which outcome.

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 text is short and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently complete. The phrase 'canonical resolver' takes up space without adding useful meaning, and the description omits essential information about the input and usage context.

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 tool with an output schema, the description could get by with less, but it still fails to explain the input contract or how this tool fits among 14 siblings. The vague 'canonical resolver' and 'next required observation' leave too much to inference.

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 explain the only parameter, 'description', but it does not mention it at all. An agent cannot tell whether 'description' should contain a physical problem statement, constraints, desired outcome, or something else.

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 concrete outcome — returns either a supported solution or the next required observation — but the key phrase 'canonical resolver' is vague jargon. It does not adequately distinguish this tool from siblings like resolve_problem or get_next_observation, whose names and purposes overlap.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this tool versus alternatives. With siblings such as get_next_observation, resolve_problem, and verify_solution, the description should clarify which workflow stage this tool belongs to, but it gives no such context.

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