resolve_person

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

The description substantially exceeds the readOnlyHint annotation by disclosing the ranking behavior, score/match reason output, ambiguity flag when candidates are close, and the meaning of an empty candidate list. This gives the agent a clear mental model of what will happen when the tool is invoked.

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 dense but well-organized: it opens with the core purpose, then gives usage order, expected output, ambiguity behavior, no-match fallback, and parameter strategy. Every sentence adds decision-relevant value and there is no filler.

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 read-only resolution tool with an output schema, the description covers the critical operational details: when to call it, how to interpret candidates, how to handle ambiguity, what an empty result means, and how to improve matching with hints. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it 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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates well for query and hints: query is implied by 'name, nickname, or partial reference', and hints are explicitly described with org, role, and relationship plus guidance to prefer them over query. The limit parameter is not explained, though its name and default suggest it caps the number of returned candidates.

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 states a specific verb ('Resolve') and resource ('a name, nickname, or partial reference to candidate people'), and clearly distinguishes this tool from simple search by describing ranked candidates, match reasons, and ambiguity handling. This makes the tool's unique role immediately understandable.

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 explicit guidance: 'Call this first whenever the user mentions someone, before asking who they mean.' It also explains when to fall back to remember/remember_person on empty results and tells the agent to put context in hints rather than query. It does not explicitly name alternative tools like search_people, so the 'vs alternatives' guidance is only implicit.

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