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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the supported method space (did:key, did:web, did:webvh, did:pkh, did:plc), which is genuine behavioral information about what inputs will work, but it says nothing about network resolution, caching, failure behavior for unknown/unsupported DIDs, or whether any authentication is needed.

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?

A single sentence with the action front-loaded and zero filler. The parenthetical method list is compact and load-bearing.

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 no output schema, the description does state the return value conceptually ("its DID document"), which is the key thing an agent needs. It is slightly thin on error/edge behavior for an unsupported or unresolvable DID, but the core contract is present for a simple lookup tool.

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 0% and the single parameter is a bare untyped string, so the description must compensate — and it does by naming the DID method families the parameter accepts. It stops short of stating whether the DID must be canonicalized or whether any resolution options are supported, but for a one-param tool this is meaningful added semantics.

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?

Specific verb ("Resolve") plus specific resource ("a DID ... to its DID document"), and it enumerates the accepted DID method prefixes. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like openentity_verify or openentity_read, though the description never names those alternatives explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: if you hold a DID, this returns its document. There is no statement of when to prefer this over openentity_find or openentity_read, and no preconditions or exclusions beyond the implicit method list.

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