resolve_entity

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

No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It notes that USENIX conferences may not have records and warns against auto-writing on ambiguity. However, it does not clarify whether the tool returns multiple candidates or just one, nor details about rate limits or side effects.

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 moderately detailed but each sentence contributes meaning. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and structured logically. A bit lengthy but not verbose.

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?

With 3 optional parameters and an output schema existing, the description covers key usage scenarios (journals, conferences, institutions). It provides workflow integration with search_works. Minor gaps remain for other entity_types and error handling.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It implicitly explains that 'query' should contain ISSN for journals and 'conference name+year' for conferences, but does not explicitly describe 'limit' or 'entity_type' beyond default usage. Adds some value but not full coverage.

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 explicitly states the tool resolves source/topic/institution names to OpenAlex IDs, which is a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_works or get_work by focusing on entity name 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?

Provides explicit guidance: journals prefer ISSN input, conferences should be queried as 'conference name+year', USENIX often lacks records, and advises when to avoid auto-writing. Includes a workflow linking to search_works.

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