Resolve a company name to a DFX entity

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

Annotations already provide readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds context about the blocking-key behavior and that it returns all candidates, which aligns with the annotations without contradiction. It doesn't mention side effects (none expected) but adequately supplements the annotation details.

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 concise and well-structured, using two sentences to convey the core purpose and key behavioral nuances. There is no redundant information or fluff.

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?

The description mentions that the output is canonical DFX entity IDs and that candidates are returned, which implies a list structure. However, it does not explicitly state the exact return schema (e.g., array of objects) or error handling, leaving some ambiguity. Given the absence of an output schema, this is a minor gap but not critical.

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 schema descriptions for 'name' and 'limit' are thorough, explaining that 'name' accepts partial or differently punctuated company names and that 'limit' caps results at 50. The parameter semantics are fully covered and well-aligned with the tool's purpose.

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 clearly states the tool's function: resolving a company name to canonical DFX entity IDs. It also specifies the input type (owner, manager, lender, servicer name) and the nature of the output (candidates, not a single guess).

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?

The description explains when to use the tool (when a name needs to be resolved to IDs) and when not to (person lookup is deliberately not offered). It also clarifies the behavior of returning multiple candidates rather than a single guess, guiding the agent's expectations.

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