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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, so the safety bar is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: only public data is returned, and non-public objects answer as not found rather than erroring — a useful disclosure about edge-case outcomes.

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?

Front-loaded with the core verb and the URN forms up top, with edge-case behavior and return contents trailing. Dense but every clause carries information; the long URN enumeration is the one stretch that reads as list-heavy.

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 an output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile, the description need not detail return values — yet it still summarizes them (object, protocol kind, JSON Schema) and covers the private-object edge case. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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% so the single param is documented, but the description goes beyond the schema's single example by listing all valid URN prefixes (gathering, church, ministry, community, need, service, testimony, prayer, profile), which meaningfully expands the agent's understanding of acceptable inputs.

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 (Resolve) plus the exact resource (a Living Bread lb: URN) and the namespace it maps into (Kingdom Protocol v0.1), then enumerates every supported URN kind. An agent can distinguish this URN resolver from the many content siblings without opening a schema.

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?

It clarifies the input domain and the fallback for unrecognized lb: URNs ('resolved through the public Kingdom Graph'), which implies usage context, but it never names an alternative tool or states when NOT to reach for this one. Guidance is inferable rather than explicit.

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