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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals no mutation; the description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns ranked candidates, produces a canonical stable slug, and explains that bulk queries resolve independently in one call. This gives an agent a clear mental model of the tool's behavior without contradicting the annotation.

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 description is tightly structured and front-loaded: purpose first, then output semantics, then bulk mode, then tool-selection alternatives. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose with no repetition or 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?

For a read-only resolve tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential decision points: what it returns, how the slug is used downstream, how to do bulk lookups, and which alternatives to choose. The only minor gap is a precise description of the ranked-candidate response structure, but the schema and slug explanation compensate adequately.

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 100%, so the schema already documents query, limit, and output_format well. The description reinforces the comma-separated bulk behavior and the purpose of the slug, but adds little semantic value beyond what the parameter descriptions already provide.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Resolve a person by free-text name.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from the related entity and company resolvers, and explains what the output is (ranked candidates with a canonical person slug).

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 guidance is explicit and actionable. It names particle_entity_resolve for organizations, places, and mixed/unknown kinds, and particle_company_resolve for companies with a known ticker/domain. It also documents the bulk-resolution use case via comma-separated queries.

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