resolve_indicator

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It explicitly discloses the return ('List of IndicatorResult ranked by relevance') and a failure mode ('IndicatorNotFoundError'), and it describes the disambiguation and source-preference behavior. It doesn't claim side effects, though a pure resolver's read-only nature is implied rather than stated.

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 definition is compact and front-loaded: a one-line purpose followed by clean Args, Returns, and Raises sections. Every sentence earns its place and the structure is scannable for an agent.

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 straightforward resolver with an output schema available, the description covers all required calling details: required term, optional disambiguation, optional source preference, return type, and error behavior. It could be more complete by explicitly stating that it resolves ambiguity across the four data sources and how that differs from direct source-specific searches, but the core invocation is complete.

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?

The schema has zero property descriptions, but the Args section gives each parameter a meaningful role: term gets concrete examples, context gets its disambiguation purpose, and preferred_source gets an explicit allowed-value list ('insee, eurostat, worldbank, oecd'). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Resolve a natural-language term to ranked indicator codes.' It clearly conveys what the tool does and the example terms ('chomage', 'PIB') reinforce it. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with sibling search tools such as insee_search_indicators, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 phrase 'Resolve a natural-language term' and 'context... for disambiguation' imply when to use it: when the input is an imprecise natural-language expression rather than a structured source-specific search. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over the many sibling search tools, and no 'use X instead' exclusions.

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