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

The annotations already declare a read-only, open-world operation, and the description adds useful behavior beyond that: how to save `resolved_version` and `revision_id`, how to use `pinned_artifacts`, and how to interpret `version_provenance` labels. It does not describe pagination or error behavior, but for a resolution tool the main behavioral caveats are well covered.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the remaining sentences contain actionable guidance rather than filler. It is dense with field names and caveats, but the density earns its place in a compact tool definition.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden, and it does so by naming `resolved_version`, `revision_id`, artifact URLs, `pinned_artifacts`, and `version_provenance`. For a two-parameter resolution tool, this is complete enough for an agent to call and interpret results 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description still adds meaningful semantics for `version` by accepting `latest` and by directing discovery through `list_versions`, which goes beyond what the schema states.

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 verb and resource: resolving a project version or `latest` to documentation and artifact URLs. It clearly distinguishes this from siblings by referring to `list_versions` for discovery and `search_docs` for later use, so an agent can identify the tool without opening the 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 explicitly says to discover valid version strings with `list_versions` first, and it routes later exact-text lookups to `pinned_artifacts` and `search_docs` via `revision_id`. It also handles the important edge case of versions without a `revision_id`, telling the agent to continue with existing artifact URLs.

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