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

There are no annotations to rely on, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions that the operation is 'public', which suggests no auth, but it does not state whether this is read-only, what happens for invalid DIDs, or error behavior. Significant transparency gaps remain.

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, front-loaded sentence: 'Resolve a DID -> DID Document + metadata (public).' It is concise and contains no fluff.

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?

With only one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It gives the core purpose but omits necessary usage guidance, parameter details, and behavioral context, leaving the agent under-informed for reliable invocation.

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 has one required parameter 'did' with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description says 'Resolve a DID' but adds no format details, examples, or constraints. It fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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's function: resolving a DID to its DID Document and metadata. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_reputation (which queries reputation) and declare_principal/declare_receipt/register (which are write operations). However, it does not elaborate on what 'resolve' entails in this specific context.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use resolve versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or compare with get_reputation or other sibling tools. The usage is only implied by the generic phrase 'Resolve a DID'.

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