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

Discloses important behaviors beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: return statuses (resolved, ambiguous, none), the nearMiss flag, and the rule to ask the user rather than guess among candidates. The phrase 'only file as new if they confirm' could sound like a write operation, but readOnlyHint is not contradicted because it is guidance for downstream action, not a claim that this tool mutates data.

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 front-loaded with its purpose and uses four sentences, each carrying useful information. There is slight redundancy between 'ask the user which one' and 'Never guess among candidates — ask the user,' but it reinforces a critical safety rule without becoming bloated.

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?

Covers the main resolution paths: resolved, ambiguous, and nearMiss, along with explicit user-confirmation requirements. The main gap is the lack of explicit guidance for the status 'none' when no close vendors exist, although the nearMiss rule implies the general principle. Since there is no output schema, the status descriptions are essential and mostly 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining the single 'name' parameter is a supplier/vendor name from a bill draft that should be matched against the company's real vendors. This gives the parameter meaningful context that the bare schema does not provide.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Resolve a supplier / vendor name for a bill draft against this company's real vendors.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like resolve_customer and resolve_product by being vendor-specific. The statuses it mentions further clarify its role as a resolution rather than a creation tool.

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?

Provides clear context: use this when reading a vendor name from a bill draft and needing to match it to existing vendors. It gives strong behavioral guidance for ambiguous and nearMiss cases, including 'ask the user' and 'never guess.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or state 'do not use for customers/products,' but the vendor-specific wording makes that implicit.

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