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

Annotations already communicate read-only and open-world behavior, so the description adds meaningful context by revealing that candidates are returned with an agent-facing identifier (slug, falling back to domain or id) and that identifiers are ANDed. This goes beyond the structured annotations, though it does not cover error or no-match behavior.

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?

Four purposeful sentences are front-loaded with the tool's purpose and return behavior, then move to input constraints and routing guidance. There is no filler or needless repetition of schema content.

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 6-parameter resolve tool with no output schema, the description covers required input, identifier combination behavior, output identifier shape, and downstream usage. The remaining details are fully covered by 100% schema documentation and the readOnly/openWorld annotations.

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%, so the baseline is met. The description adds important cross-parameter semantics: at least one identifier is required even though no schema field is required, multiple identifiers are ANDed, and the returned slug/domain/id is meant to be passed as company_slug to downstream tools.

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 opens with 'Resolve a company by free-text name, ticker, SEC CIK, Wikidata QID, or domain,' naming a specific verb, resource, and accepted identifier forms. It also distinguishes itself from sibling resolve tools by directing people and non-company knowledge-graph entities to particle_entity_resolve.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool, requires at least one identifier, explains that multiple identifiers are ANDed for disambiguation, and gives a clear when-not with an alternative: use particle_entity_resolve for people or non-company entities. It even tells the agent which downstream tools should receive the returned slug.

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