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

Annotations already establish this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the description does not need to repeat that. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: it returns ambiguity candidates rather than guessing, and includes supported import and evidence. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand the tool's decision-making behavior.

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 compact and front-loaded with the most important usage constraint, 'Use after discovery.' Every sentence adds value: the first defines the action, the second describes key behavioral guarantees. There is no filler or redundancy.

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?

Given the output schema, annotations, and fully documented parameters, the description is largely complete for an inspection/resolution tool. It explains when to use it and what behavior to expect. It could slightly improve by explicitly contrasting with search_revogrid_docs or list_revogrid_capabilities, but this is not a significant gap given the context signals.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already well documented in the schema. The description reinforces that the query targets an exact symbol or capability, but does not add substantial meaning beyond the schema. A baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 a specific action: resolving one exact symbol or capability, rather than broadly inspecting the API. It also distinguishes itself from sibling discovery/search tools by noting it returns ambiguity candidates instead of guessing. The phrase 'Use after discovery' positions the tool precisely within a workflow.

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 clear contextual guidance: use it after discovery and for resolving one exact symbol or capability. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context and sibling tool names make the intended usage reasonably clear. This is strong but not fully explicit about exclusions.

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