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

Annotations already state read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat safety signals. It adds substantial behavioral detail: at most 5 candidates, the 3-character minimum name, three separate fact-grade lists, the meaning of "stated by the subject," and the Disputed marker with no attached reason. This gives the agent meaningful expectations beyond 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?

The description is longer than minimal, but nearly every sentence carries meaningful operational detail—candidate limit, fact-grade semantics, disputed handling, and rate-limit/auth context. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and lookup distinction. Slightly dense in the middle, but not wasteful.

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 no output schema, the description does the necessary work of explaining the returned data: up to 5 candidates, handle and kind per candidate, and three separate fact lists with a Disputed marker. It also covers auth requirements (no key, rate-limited; partner access exists) and operational constraints. An agent has enough to call this tool and interpret its response correctly.

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 already describes both parameters fully (name and kind enum), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the effective minimum name length (3 characters, despite schema minLength 1) and by explaining that kind narrows the resolution. This goes beyond a mere restatement of 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 clearly states a specific action: "Resolve the name of a person or an organization to published records" on pansofica.com MAG. It reinforces the purpose with "This is a lookup, not a list," which separates it from list/listing tools. The result shape (up to 5 candidates with handle and kind) is also stated, making the tool's role 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?

The description gives clear context: use this when you need to resolve a name into handles/kinds, and it explicitly says "not a list," which steers away from bulk listing. It also mentions the unkeyed lookup tier and rate limits, but it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as get_subject or search, so when-to-use versus those specific tools is left implied.

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