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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds context beyond annotations by specifying that the operation resolves public, non-enumerating verification keys for one agent, which signals a privacy-preserving, targeted read.

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 well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource while adding the key scoping constraint. No redundant or filler content exists.

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, read-only, idempotent lookup with a clear purpose, the description is complete: it identifies what is resolved, for whom, and what the operation does not do. The absence of an output schema is not harmful because 'public verification keys' and RFC 8037 communicate the expected return.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains that agent_id is an opaque Agent ID and that the operation targets exactly one of them, adding semantic value beyond the raw schema pattern. It does not restate the required/format constraints, but there is only one parameter and its role is clear.

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', names the exact resource, 'RFC 8037 public verification keys', and scopes it to 'one opaque Agent ID'. The clause 'without enumerating identities' differentiates it from bulk identity operations, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

It clearly conveys that this tool is for a single opaque Agent ID and not for enumerating identities, which gives an agent a selection cue. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative or list when not to use it, but the scoping language is sufficient for a simple lookup tool.

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