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

Annotations already cover safety behavior (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the output type—no mention of network behavior, failure modes, or operational characteristics—so it contributes little beyond the 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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero filler. The key input format is parenthetically clarified, and every word contributes to the definition.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description is sufficient for correct invocation. It states what to pass, what the value looks like, and what to expect back; no return-value details are needed because the output schema exists.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents the single `curie` parameter with an example. The description restates the prefix:id format and the resolution result, but it does not add substantial meaning beyond what the input schema already conveys, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Resolve'), identifies the exact input format ('CURIE (prefix:id)'), and states the output ('provider URL'). This is specific enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like resolve_entity or prefixes, which are not about URL resolution of a CURIE.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as resolve_entity, prefixes, or resolution_audit. There is no contextual trigger, exclusion, or mention of a sibling condition, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name.

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