people_identity_resolve

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return shape ('outcome, normalized output, raw provider data and _meta.tried') and a significant behavioral trait: 'Provider API charges are billed directly to your provider account.' This goes beyond a basic one-liner, though it doesn't cover every operational behavior such as rate limits or failure semantics.

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 three tightly packed sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core concept, then gives input requirements, references the vendor option, and lists output components and billing context. Every sentence earns its place.

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 a 14-parameter tool with full schema coverage and an output schema present, the description covers the essential usage narrative: what the tool does, what it returns, how to constrain provider selection, and a billing caveat. It is slightly incomplete in not differentiating from nearby sibling tools, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 each of the 14 parameters is already documented in the input schema. The description adds the high-level insight that providing any one identifier is sufficient to resolve the rest, but it does not add per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb phrase ('Identity resolution') and states the exact resource: one person's profiles across platforms resolved into a single set. It clearly defines the input/output contract ('Give any one of them... and get the rest') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like people_search or social_profile by focusing on cross-platform merging rather than search or enrichment.

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 gives clear context: use this tool when you have any one profile identifier (LinkedIn, GitHub, X, etc.) and need the full consolidated set. It also notes the optional 'vendor' parameter to pin a provider. It does not explicitly list when-not-to-use or name alternatives like people_search/people_enrich, so it misses an explicit exclusion clause.

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