Lookup Text

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context that the tool maps integer hashes to original text, which is beyond the schema. It does not disclose any additional behavioral traits like rate limits or error handling, but for a simple lookup tool this is acceptable.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the verb 'Resolve', and no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value: first states the core function, second explains when to use it. Excellent conciseness.

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 simple read-only lookup with a well-covered schema and safety annotations, the description is complete enough. It explains the purpose, the mapping concept, and the usage context. It doesn't describe return values for unknown hashes, but there is no output schema requirement and the tool's simplicity makes this a minor gap.

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 schema already documents each parameter. The description clarifies that hashes refer to comma-separated integer IDs and that the tool returns original text values, adding some meaning. However, it doesn't go beyond the schema's descriptions, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource ('Resolve hash IDs to their original text values') and clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools by explaining it converts hashes to text, which is not covered by the other getters. It also mentions that these hashes appear in other tool outputs, giving a clear purpose.

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 says to use this when you encounter a hash ID in other tool outputs ('Use this to get the actual text for a hash ID seen in other tool outputs'). It gives a clear context, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state exclusions. This is sufficient guidance for this read-only utility.

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