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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is set. The description adds real behavioral value by disclosing the fuzzy substring-match behavior and the potentially large result set ('dozens of distinct issuers'), which the annotations do not convey.

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 the core purpose and immediately followed by the trigger condition. The parenthetical example is slightly verbose but earns its place by illustrating the ambiguous-match case.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by describing the return (a list of distinct matching issuers). For a single-parameter lookup tool this is largely complete, though it could note the typical next step after resolution.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents that it accepts a full or partial name. The description's 'partial or informal name' framing and the 'san diego' example reinforce but do not add syntax beyond the schema, matching the baseline of 3.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: resolving a partial/informal name to the exact issuer name CDIAC uses for California municipal bonds. It even conveys the scope of the match ('returns the dozens of distinct issuers containing it'), which distinguishes it from the sibling search and profile tools.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it: 'Use this when a name is ambiguous before searching issuance.' This routes the agent to resolve first, then search, but it does not name the specific alternative tool (e.g. ca_debt_search_issues) or state when to skip resolution entirely.

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