Resolve a phrase (or emem:entity: token) to a canonical object

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 known. The description adds useful behavioral context: text vs near vs token modes, and that token dereferences directly to the signed entity body. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 concise and well-structured: a main purpose paragraph, a 'When to use' paragraph, and a helpful example. Every sentence adds value without waffle or duplication.

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?

The description covers the main use cases (fuzzy text, near filtering, token dereference), gives an example, and distinguishes from siblings. It does not specify return format or error handling, but given the annotations and complete schema, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description provides an example argument object and clarifies that token bypasses search, but the schema already documents each parameter well. No significant additional semantic value is added.

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 clearly states the tool's action: 'Converge a fuzzy phrasing onto the canonical object' and explicitly contrasts it with re-minting, which distinguishes it from sibling mint tools. It also covers token dereference, making the purpose specific and 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 has an explicit 'When to use' section instructing to call BEFORE minting and for token dereference, with the principle 'resolve first, mint only if nothing matches.' It provides clear context but does not name alternative sibling tools explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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