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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds key behavioral info: the tool only searches agents with public reputation visibility, requires zero authentication, and returns agent_ids. No contradiction with 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with core action, followed by usage guidance. No redundant words. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Covers purpose, scope (public directory), auth requirement, and next steps. With an output schema present, the description doesn't need to detail return format. Minor gap: does not explicitly state that results are paginated, but schema covers pagination params. Overall good completeness.

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?

All 6 parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no new param-level detail. It provides context for the 'q' parameter ('name or id-prefix') but that is already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Resolve an agent name or id-prefix to a real agent_id over the PUBLIC reputation directory', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_agent (requires id) and list_agents (different scope), and positions itself as the entry point for discovering agent IDs.

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 tells when to use this tool: as the entry point to discover a concrete agent_id, then delegate to get_reputation/verify_reputation. It also notes 'zero-auth', setting expectations. This provides clear guidance on alternatives and preconditions.

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