Resolve Any

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. Beyond that the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the return shape (ResolutionCandidateHit rows with scanned/truncated counts), that it deliberately does NOT throw RESOLUTION_AMBIGUOUS across resources, and the hard-cap error semantics (larger than 100 throws CONFIG_ERROR, never silently clamped). Only a richer description of ordering across resources is missing.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and the routing rule, followed by return/error semantics. Efficient overall, though the limit-bound sentence partially duplicates text already present in the schema's limit description, which is a small redundancy.

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 nested-object, cross-resource resolver with an output schema, the description covers routing, return semantics, ambiguity behavior, and bound/error handling. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing, and return-value detail is appropriately delegated to the output schema.

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 50% and the schema already documents both params thoroughly, including the same limit cap/CONFIG_ERROR wording repeated in the description. The description restates the limit bound rather than adding new meaning, and never mentions the resources fan-out parameter at all, so it neither compensates nor extends the schema meaningfully.

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 a specific verb (Resolve) and resource (an identifier against several resources) with the concrete outcome (return the candidates that match). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the per-resource resolve alternative, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings like hudu_search and the hudu_get_<singular> family without opening a schema.

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?

Gives the positive condition (identifier known but resource type unknown), the negative condition (do not use when the resource type is known), and names the alternative to use instead ('call that resource's hudu_get_<singular>'). This is exactly the when/when-not/alternative triad.

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