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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does meaningfully describe the resolution behavior and the returned sections (page, price rows, realizations), which is useful. But it does not disclose behavior for ambiguous or unknown names, how limits constrain results, or any failure modes.

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 front-loads the core action and every clause adds distinct information: input forms, the resolved resource, and the three output components. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 description is serviceable and names the return sections, which matters because there is no output schema. However, it omits the meaning of price_limit and realization_limit and provides no guidance for choosing this tool among many siblings, leaving it adequate but with clear gaps.

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?

Only two of the four parameters (location and identifier) are described in the schema, and the description does not compensate for the low 50% coverage. price_limit and realization_limit are never explained, and mentioning 'price rows' and 'related realizations' only loosely hints at their effect; the agent cannot infer defaults, units, or exact meaning.

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 names a specific verb ('Resolve') and resource ('service'), and specifies the two accepted input forms (stable id or natural-language name) plus the three output components (primary public page, structured price rows, related realizations). This makes it distinguishable from siblings like list_services, get_prices, and get_realizations.

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 implies a use case: when a single service record with pricing and realizations is needed, and it makes clear that either an id or a natural-language name can be supplied. However, it never explicitly compares this tool to alternatives such as get_prices or get_realizations, nor states when to prefer the composite tool over the narrower ones.

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