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 meaningful behavioral detail: 'River-root-first with no destructive side effects,' treats TF-RIVER as the canonical issuer thesis graph, and states 'Missing nodes are returned in missing_or_unresolved instead of inferred.' It also lists defaults for object_type, include_unpublished, and limit. No contradiction with 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 dense but logically structured: purpose, parameters/defaults, behavior, and usage guidance in sequence. Each sentence earns its place, and there is no filler. It is somewhat long but justified by the tool's complexity and the need to explain multiple lookup paths and constraints.

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?

Given the tool's high parameter count and alternative lookup modes, the description covers purpose, defaults, safety, and workflow placement relative to article_thesis_map. It also explains key behavioral nuances like the canonical TF-RIVER graph and missing-node handling. The output schema handles return values, so omission of return details is acceptable. Minor gap: it does not discuss parameter conflict resolution or provide examples, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description groups parameters as alternative lookup keys (current_tripcode, article_tripcode, tripcode, river, river_tripcodes, issuer, or ticker) and states defaults, some already in the schema (limit, object_type) and one additional (include_unpublished defaults to false). This adds marginal value but does not dramatically deepen 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 clearly states it is a read-only resolver to discover TF-SUB article nodes from specific input types (current article TripCode, issuer TF-RIVER root, or issuer lookup index). It distinguishes itself by explicitly positioning the tool 'before article_thesis_map' and emphasizing the 'River-root-first' behavior, which separates it from sibling resolver tools.

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 concrete usage context: 'Use this before article_thesis_map so subscribers do not need to manually paste old River TripCodes,' and clarifies that 'by_issuer as a lookup surface only.' However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling resolver tools like resolve_article_tripcode or mention when not to use it, so it lacks full exclusionary guidance.

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