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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description only needs to add behavioral nuance. It does: it returns 'ambiguous' rather than guessing when multiple candidates exist, and explicitly warns never to auto-pick candidates[0]. No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and each subsequent sentence adds a distinct, useful fact: fallback behavior, matchup combination, and ambiguity handling. There is no filler or repetition.

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?

Given the nested schema, output schema, and safety annotations, the description covers the main resolution modes, sports-specific fallback, matchup logic, and the critical ambiguous-return behavior. An agent has enough to invoke the tool correctly without major gaps.

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?

The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema for clues: event_id is authoritative, player/team clues need an optional date window, and team_id + opponent_team_id forms a specific matchup. However, the options object (max_candidates, min_confidence) receives no narrative guidance, and schema description coverage is only 50%, so compensation is partial.

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 states a precise verb and resource: 'Resolve event identity from an event_id, or a player_id/team_id clue plus an optional date window, to a Lumify event_id.' It also differentiates itself from siblings like get_event and resolve_player by focusing on identity resolution rather than retrieval or player/team resolution.

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 gives concrete usage context: event_id is ground truth, player/team clues need a date window, team_id plus opponent_team_id handles matchups, and team sports fall back to roster schedules while individual sports track participation directly. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the guidance is otherwise clear.

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