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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It proactively discloses that the tool is free, that installationId is hashed and deduplicated daily, and that it never creates payment or credit. This addresses the main behavioral concerns, though it does not exhaustively describe all behaviors such as error handling or side effects beyond logging.

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 two concise sentences. The first states the core purpose and output; the second explains the optional parameter. It is front-loaded, contains no filler, and every clause adds value.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explicitly enumerates what the tool returns (producer, validity window, normalized input). It covers the input (artifactId, installationId) and the operational context (experiment participation, no cost). For a simple read tool with one required parameter, this is fully complete.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage of parameter descriptions, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema, particularly for installationId (purpose of participating in the cross-agent experiment and its hashed/deduped handling) and artifactId (origin from another agent). This raises the score above the baseline.

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 (artifactId) and explicitly lists the output: producer, validity window, and normalized input. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying the use case 'another agent handed you', making its purpose unmistakable.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (when another agent hands you an artifactId) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The context is strong, but it lacks explicit exclusions or other sibling tool references.

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