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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds discovery-only framing and specifies what is resolved (issuer index, TF-RIVER root, TF-SUB nodes), providing useful behavioral context 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, and every clause earns its place. No filler or repetition.

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?

The tool is a simple discovery/search helper with a full output schema and 100% schema param coverage; the description captures its read-only nature and intended use. It could mention defaults or exclusions more explicitly, but the combination of schema and description is adequate.

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 covers all four parameters with descriptions, examples, and constraints, so the description's param summary adds little. 'Pass issuer or ticker' confirms the either/or relationship already implied by the schema's 'Ticker alias for issuer,' but doesn't exceed 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 states a specific function: 'resolve the issuer index, active TF-RIVER root, and published TF-SUB article nodes for an issuer.' It uses a clear verb ('resolve') and distinguishes itself as a 'discovery helper, not a thesis generator,' separating it from sibling 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 opening 'Use this read-only tool' and parameter guidance ('pass issuer or ticker') give concrete usage context. The 'not a thesis generator' note is an explicit exclusion, though no alternative tool names are given, leaving the when-not partly implicit.

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