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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds value beyond them: the anti-guessing behavior ('returns ambiguity candidates instead of guessing') and the response content ('supported import and evidence'). It does not describe no-match behavior, but with annotations present this is a solid disclosure.

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 with zero filler: the first front-loads workflow position and purpose, the second adds the two key behavioral traits. Every word 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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile, the description covers purpose, workflow position, ambiguity handling, and output content. It could add guidance on when version/framework/packageName are needed for exact resolution, but the schema documents those parameters and their semantics are clear.

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 schema fully documents query, version, framework, packageName, and includeInternal. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, 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 pairs a specific verb ('resolve') with a bounded resource ('one exact symbol or capability'), and the qualifiers 'one exact' and 'after discovery' position it against siblings like list_revogrid_capabilities and search_revogrid_docs. An agent can tell this is the targeted lookup tool, not a listing, search, or planning tool.

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?

'Use after discovery' explicitly places the tool in the workflow following capability discovery, which is actionable guidance about when to invoke it. However, it names no sibling alternatives and gives no when-not conditions, so the boundary against tools like search_revogrid_docs must be inferred.

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