resolve_taxonomy

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: low-confidence matches return candidate slugs without auto-selecting one, which tells the agent to expect an ambiguous/plural result and to make the final choice itself.

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?

Two tight sentences, zero waste. Purpose is front-loaded and the failure-mode caveat follows immediately, so an agent gets the essentials in the first clause.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, yet the description still covers the one return behavior that matters (candidates on low confidence). For a two-parameter read-only resolver, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 50%, and the description only loosely maps to the two parameters ('location or industry name' corresponds to query/type). The schema already enumerates type and describes query as 'Name, abbreviation or alias', so the description adds little syntax or format detail; 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?

States a specific verb (Resolve) and resource (location or industry name to a Jobicy slug), so an agent knows exactly what transformation it performs. It doesn't name sibling tools like list_taxonomies or get_taxonomies, so it falls short of explicit sibling differentiation, but the 'when unsure of a slug' framing implicitly separates it from the list/get taxonomy tools.

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?

'Use when unsure of a slug' gives a clear selection condition that distinguishes it from direct taxonomy lookups. There is no explicit 'when not to use' or named alternative, but for a simple resolution helper the trigger condition is unambiguous.

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