Find a Keel asset id by code

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: that no single match is selected and that multiple matches are a normal, expected outcome the agent must handle by asking the user.

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 with zero filler. The lookup behavior is front-loaded and the multi-issuer caveat follows immediately, each sentence earning 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?

With no output schema, the description still conveys what comes back (full CODE:ISSUER ids, possibly several), which is exactly the information an agent needs. Nothing material for correct invocation 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 description coverage is 100%, so both the code and issuer parameters are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the multi-issuer case but adds no syntax, format, or matching rules beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb (resolves) and resource (an asset code such as USDY or AQUA) and states the concrete output form (CODE:ISSUER ids Keel monitors). It is distinguishable in effect from siblings like list_assets, though it does not name an alternative tool explicitly, keeping it at a strong 4.

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?

It provides clear operational context: when one code has several issuers all are returned, and the agent is told to ask the user rather than pick one. That is real usage guidance, but there is no statement of when to prefer a sibling tool or when this lookup is unnecessary, so it stops short of a 5.

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