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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value: each candidate carries a `type` and canonical `slug`, and it maps each type's slug to the downstream parameters that consume it, which is more than the annotations convey.

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 purpose, then a scannable type-to-slug bullet list and a bulk-resolution note. Slightly long, but nearly every sentence carries routing information an agent needs, so there is little waste.

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 annotations covering safety and no output schema to worry about, the description supplies the missing return-shape context (candidates carry `type` and canonical `slug`) and how to consume those slugs downstream. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is absent.

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 `query` and `limit` are already fully documented, including comma-separated bulk semantics and per-query grouping. The description largely repeats that and only marginally adds the per-query behavior of `limit`, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ("any named thing — person, company, place, or other entity") in one union search, and explicitly distinguishes itself from particle_person_resolve and particle_company_resolve. An agent can select this tool without opening any 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?

Gives an explicit routing rule ("Use this first whenever you only have a name and don't know what kind of thing it names") plus the conditions selecting the alternatives: person_resolve when the type is known, company_resolve when ticker/domain/CIK/QID are known. Bulk-query usage is also spelled out.

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