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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that lookup works from a stable id or a natural-language phrase, but says nothing about failure behavior when resolution misses, or about how the optional limits affect results.

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 front-loaded sentence with the verb first and zero wasted clauses; the return payload is enumerated compactly rather than padded with filler.

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 usefully names the returned sections, and annotations cover the safety profile. But for a 4-parameter resolver with only 50% parameter documentation, the missing behavior on unresolved names and the meaning of the two limit parameters leaves an agent with real 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?

Schema description coverage is 50%: identifier and location are documented in the schema, while price_limit and realization_limit are bare. The description partially compensates by tying 'price rows' and 'related realizations' to the output, implying those limits control them, but it adds no syntax, range, or format detail beyond 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?

States a specific verb (resolve) and resource (a service) plus the exact return payload (primary public page, structured price rows, related realizations). It is clearly distinguishable from list_services, get_realizations, and get_price_information 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?

The description implies single-service lookup and even hints that the identifier accepts either a stable id or a natural-language phrase, which is useful context. However, it never states when to prefer this over list_services, get_price_information, or get_realizations, and gives no prerequisites or exclusions.

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