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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a small behavioral detail ('predecessors stay visible'), which is useful, but it does not explain failure modes, return format, or edge cases. With annotations present, this is adequate but not rich.

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 compact, front-loads the core purpose, and includes a usage trigger and an example. The trailing 'norm.' fragment is unclear and adds little value, preventing a perfect score, but overall the description is efficiently written.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the key outputs (ELI, titles, in-force status) and gives a usage condition. It is reasonably complete for an agent to decide whether to use it, though the meaning of 'norm.' and the exact response structure remain slightly underspecified.

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% and the single required parameter 'sr' is already documented with the same example (832.10). The description adds meaning about what the resolution returns, but not significantly more about the parameter itself, so the baseline score of 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Resolve') with a clear resource (SR number) and the main outputs (ELI, titles, in-force status), backed by a concrete example. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from closely related siblings like resolve_consolidation_at or parse_reference, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 gives an explicit trigger condition: 'use when a question names an SR'. This is clear context for when to invoke the tool. It does not provide exclusions or name alternatives, but the stated use case is sufficient for basic selection.

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