resolution_get

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden; 'get' and 'record' make this clearly a read, which helps. It also discloses the semantic caveat that unverified state should not be treated as fact, a genuinely useful behavioral note. Missing: behavior when the instrument has no resolution record, error/permission conditions, or confirmation that the call is side-effect free.

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?

One dense sentence that front-loads the resource and then lists returns and enum values — no filler. The leading 'T0.' and trailing '(5.4)' are unexplained tokens that cost space without conveying meaning to an agent lacking the reference key.

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 one-parameter getter with no output schema, listing the returned components (state, outcome, sources, history) and the state enum does real work and covers most of what an agent needs. Gaps remain around missing-record behavior and any access constraints, and the cryptic tier/section references are unexplained.

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% for the single instrument_id parameter, but the name is largely self-explanatory and the phrase 'for an instrument' confirms the identifier's domain (instrument, not order or venue). No format, sourcing, or lookup-failure semantics are given beyond that.

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 the specific resource retrieved — the Resolution record for a given instrument — and enumerates the pieces it contains (state, outcome, sources, history) plus the state enum values, which distinguishes it from resolution_report/resolution_verify by implication (this is the read). The unexplained 'T0.' prefix and '(5.4)' citation add noise, and it never names the sibling write tools explicitly.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of how this differs from resolution_report or resolution_verify despite those being the obvious alternatives. The aside 'Unverified is data, not fact (5.4)' gestures at interpretation guidance but is too cryptic to count as usable direction.

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