symbology_resolve

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

Given no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It only states the core function without disclosing important traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling for unresolved symbols, or the nature of the output. This is minimal.

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 a single concise sentence that wastes no words, and it front-loads the primary action. While it could benefit from structured bullets or parameter hints, it is efficient for a simple statement.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters (5 required) and no output schema or annotations. The description does not explain return values, error behavior, or the role of 'dataset'. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's full behavior.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond 'across a date range', which is already implied by the schema's required start_date. Thus, baseline score of 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 clearly states the verb 'resolve' and the resource 'symbols', specifying the outcome 'to instrument IDs or other symbol types' with a temporal scope 'across a date range'. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like batch_download or metadata_list_datasets, which are unrelated to symbol 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?

The description provides basic context for when the tool is applicable (resolving symbols across dates) but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. Since sibling tools are diverse and no direct competitor exists, the usage is implied but not fully elaborated.

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