Lookup by tag, serial or username

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful output context ('full records with numeric ids') that no output schema provides, but omits what happens when no match is found and whether multiple identifiers may be combined.

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 with zero waste, leading with the verb and the lookup keys. Every clause carries information not available in the structured fields.

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?

Reasonable for a read-only resolve tool, but with five all-optional parameters and no output schema an agent still needs to know resolution rules for ambiguous or multi-identifier calls and the not-found behavior.

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 carry the load, and it does map all five parameters to their entity types (asset_tag/serial to asset, username/email/employee_num to user). It does not state mutual exclusivity or that one identifier is required, which the schema leaves as five optional properties.

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?

A specific verb ('Resolve') plus explicit resources (hardware asset, user) and the key types that select between them. An agent can tell it apart from 'get'/'list' by the natural-key lookup framing, though no sibling is named to make the contrast explicit.

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 identifier lists imply when to use it (when you hold a tag, serial, username, email, or employee number rather than an id), but no alternative is named and no when-not condition is stated. Usage must be inferred.

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