conceptio_resolve

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: unrecognized identifiers silently degrade to a text search, which an agent needs to know to interpret results correctly. It does not mention rate limits, auth, or what the returned documents look like.

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 verb and resource lead, and the long enumerations are load-bearing because they define what 'recognized' means. The format list could be compressed (e.g. grouped by ID family), but nothing is redundant.

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 two-parameter read-only lookup with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers the identifier vocabulary, the failure mode, and the precision intent. It leaves the return shape (single document vs. ranked list) and behavior when one citation matches multiple documents unspecified, and no output schema exists to fill that in.

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 3, but the description earns extra credit by illustrating the accepted id syntaxes (RFC, doi:, arXiv, PMID, PMC, NIST/FIPS, W3C shortname, US legal citation/docket) far beyond the schema's two examples. It says nothing about how limit interacts with ambiguous identifiers, which is the remaining gap.

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 a specific resource ('known identifier' to 'document(s) in the archive'), then enumerates the identifier families it accepts. This is clearly distinguishable from conceptio_search, whose job is free-text lookup rather than exact citation 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?

Explicitly says when to reach for it ('when an agent has a concrete citation/reference it wants to locate precisely') and notes the fallback path for unrecognized identifiers. It stops short of naming conceptio_search as the alternative for vague queries, so the routing is implied rather than spelled out.

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