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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explicitly states 'without executing the selected action', reinforcing readOnlyHint, and explains the 'ranked' output and 'never invent keys' constraint. No contradictions with the readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, or destructiveHint annotations.

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 four sentences, each contributing a distinct point (purpose, usage context, key constraint, fallback). It is information-dense without being bloated, though it could be slightly streamlined without losing meaning.

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 complex tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers the core decision framework: when to call, what not to do (never invent keys), and how to discover valid keys. However, it omits semantics for several parameters like 'constraints' and 'preferences', leaving some ambiguity for correct full 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 description meaningfully clarifies the four array parameters by requiring 'exact canonical AgentPort keys' and naming business.search/business.get for discovery. However, with schema description coverage at 36%, it does not explain the required 'intent' parameter, nor the 'constraints', 'preferences', 'desiredOutcome', or 'executionRequired' fields, which remain ambiguous.

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 specific verb ('resolve') and resource ('structured user goal to ranked machine-capable resources and provider-owned execution paths'), and is explicitly positioned as the 'final discovery step' distinct from business.search/business.get. This makes it clear what the tool does and how it differs from its 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 description explicitly says 'Use this after business.search/business.get whenever the user asks whether a provider can expose a machine-capable action or execution path' and directs users to 'If exact keys are unknown, use business.search and business.get first.' This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use instructions with named alternatives.

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