anchor_resolve

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

With readOnlyHint=true already covering the safety profile, the description adds real value by disclosing return shape (range, score, match kind, ambiguous candidates) — important since there is no output schema — and the behavioral guarantee that exact mode never yields fuzz/fold results.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and return content before the mode caveat. The match_level sentence is dense and reads somewhat tangled, but nothing is wasted.

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 read-only resolver with a nested anchor object and no output schema, the description supplies the missing return-value context and the exact-vs-folded matching behavior. It is nearly complete, with only the relationship to alternative lookup tools left implicit.

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 mode, match_level and the anchor fields are already fully documented in the schema. The description restates the mode/match_level semantics rather than adding new syntax or edge-case meaning, so it sits at the baseline.

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?

Clear verb+resource: "Find an anchor's passage" with the specific outputs (range, score, match kind, or ambiguous candidates). It contrasts well with anchor_create semantically, though it never names or distinguishes itself from adjacent lookup siblings like find or locate.

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?

It states a conditional rule ("mode exact never returns a fuzzy match") and explains the match_level ladder, which implicitly tells the agent when results will be strict vs folded. But there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives guidance against find/locate/anchor_create.

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