Current State

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/destructive hints already in annotations, the description discloses the possible resolution statuses, the output fields (answer, compact history, why edges), the non-blank constraint, and error conditions ('Invalid input or database failures return a tool error').

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 three sentences, front-loaded with 'Read-only', and every sentence adds value—no repetition of schema or annotations. It is concise yet information-dense.

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 resolution tool with six parameters and an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, input constraints, output structure, error behavior, and sibling relationships. The output schema supplies the remaining structural details, so the description is 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with per-parameter descriptions. The description adds contextual meaning by noting that 'state_key must be non-blank' and that the filter parameters 'narrow the resolution', which goes beyond the schema's literal field descriptions.

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 specifies the verb ('Resolve') and resource ('one stable state_key') and the output shape (JSON object with statuses). It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly naming search and timeline as alternatives.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool instead of search ('Use this instead of search when the durable key is known') and when to use timeline ('use timeline for chronological observation context'). It also notes the required non-blank state_key and filter behavior.

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