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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds a valuable behavioral guarantee — 'The tool never creates an order' — ruling out a plausible side effect. There is no contradiction with the 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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the resolution behavior and the output contract; the second sentence removes any concern about side effects. The most important safety information is front-loaded at the end of a very short definition.

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 safety-related annotations covering side effects, the description provides everything needed for a single-parameter lookup: the accepted slugs, what it returns, and the guarantee that no order is created. Nothing important is missing.

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 input schema is fully self-descriptive: the single slug parameter has an enum of the three allowed values and its own description. The description adds only the nuance that these are legacy package slugs, which is useful but does not significantly raise parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 ("Resolves") and names a concrete resource: a legacy package slug from the Essential/Advanced/Max set. It also lists the exact outputs — current public panel price, biomarker count, features, and human URL — which clearly distinguishes it from sibling listing and catalog tools even though it does not name them.

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 makes the usage context clear: when you have an exact legacy package slug and need its current public panel details. It does not explicitly name alternatives or conditions to avoid this tool, so it misses the top score, but the intended use is unambiguous.

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