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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context about what the tool resolves (the free Agent ID contract) and what it covers (next request, local-key rules, supported interfaces), which is useful but does not disclose return format or failure behavior. 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?

The description is a single sentence that front-loads the core action ('Resolve the free RunOnProof Agent ID contract') and then lists the covered aspects. It is concise and information-dense, though the list of covered aspects is a bit compressed.

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 zero-parameter, read-only, idempotent tool, the description is mostly complete. It explains what the tool does and what it covers, but it does not describe the output shape or how the result relates to sibling tools like get_agent_identity_status. Given the absence of an output schema, a bit more detail on what 'resolve' returns would improve 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. The description adds meaning by explaining what the tool resolves and what aspects it covers, which is valuable context for a no-input tool. Baseline 4 for zero params 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 names a specific verb ('Resolve') and a specific resource ('the free RunOnProof Agent ID contract'), and lists the aspects it covers ('exact next request, local-key rules and supported interfaces'). It is clear about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_agent_identity_status or resolve_agent_intent.

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 implies a bootstrap/resolution use case ('exact next request, local-key rules and supported interfaces') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like resolve_agent_intent or get_agent_identity_status. There is no when-not-to-use guidance.

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