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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) already provide the safety profile. The description adds useful context about the report contents (Pick Rate, rank, who beats it), which goes beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose resolution behavior (e.g., what happens on ambiguity or no match), so it meets but does not exceed the baseline for annotation-covered tools.

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, front-loaded with the verb 'Resolve,' and contains no extraneous words. Every part earns its place, including the parenthetical listing of report contents.

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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description clearly states what the tool does, what inputs it accepts, and what the output contains. It lacks edge-case details (e.g., error handling, multiple results), but given the low complexity, the description is largely sufficient.

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 single parameter 'query' is fully described in the schema ('Search term: name, slug, domain, or package'), and the description repeats these exact types. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, staying at the baseline.

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 a specific action ('Resolve') and a specific resource (tool name, slug, domain, or package) to a defined output (Pickrate report with Pick Rate, rank, who beats it). This differentiates it from siblings like getLeaderboard or getPickRate by framing it as a resolution/lookup tool rather than a direct query.

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 clearly implies when to use it: when you have a tool identifier (name, slug, domain, package) and want its Pickrate report. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., using getPickRate for just the rate), but the context is clear enough for an agent to select this tool over siblings.

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