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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns candidate names and domains, which is useful, but doesn't disclose behavior like fuzzy matching, pagination, or result limits. With annotations covering the core safety traits, a 3 is appropriate.

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 that front-loads the action and outcome with zero waste. It earns its place by clarifying the tool's role as a resolver rather than a final lookup.

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 simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It tells the agent what to expect (candidate names and domains) and the context (before choosing identity). The only gap is not describing result limits or how to handle multiple candidates, but that's minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the query is a company name, which adds meaning beyond the bare 'query' string field. However, it doesn't provide format details like case sensitivity, partial matching, or whether domains are included in the query. Baseline 3 is fair since the description gives some semantic context.

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') and names the resource (company name to candidate startup names and domains), which clearly distinguishes it from a generic search. It doesn't explicitly name sibling tools, but the purpose is clear enough to differentiate from lookup_startup and read_startup_memo.

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 this is a pre-step before choosing an intended identity, suggesting it should be used before lookup_startup or read_startup_memo. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, leaving some inference to the agent.

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