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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no further behavioral context, such as network access or result structure. It does not contradict annotations, so a baseline 3 is appropriate given the strong annotation coverage.

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?

A single sentence with a leading verb and no filler. Every word contributes meaning, efficiently conveying the tool's inputs and outputs.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with annotations, the description sufficiently conveys the purpose and main outputs. It lacks an output schema, but the three result elements (package, binary, install command) are stated. Minor edge cases or error behavior are not required for this simplicity.

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 schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description names the two parameters ('tool' and 'distribution') and their roles. It does not elaborate on formats, constraints, or examples, leaving the distro pattern and tool naming assumptions somewhat vague. This partial compensation aligns with a 3.

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 the action 'Resolve' and the specific resource combination ('a tool and distribution') with a defined output ('its package, real binary and install command'). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_tool or identify_binary, which focus on subsets.

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?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description says what it does but not when it should be preferred, such as 'when you need the install command' or 'instead of get_tool.' Usage context is only implicit.

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