comex_resolve_code

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions bidirectional resolution and the URF classification, which adds specific context. However, it does not disclose return format, error handling, or whether partial matches are supported. For a simple lookup this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 two concise sentences. The first states the core function and lists the code types, the second provides the rationale. There is no wasted wording, and the key action is front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is essentially complete. It covers purpose, scope, and rationale. It could mention the return structure (e.g., list of matches) but the bidirectional resolver nature makes that non-critical for an agent to call 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining what each kind represents (e.g., VIA is modal de transporte, URF includes classification aeroporto/porto/outra) and clarifies that query can be a code or a name. This enriches the parameter semantics beyond the schema alone.

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' with the resource 'codigos oficiais para nomes e vice-versa' and enumerates the exact code types (pais, NCM, VIA, URF) including URF's classification. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like comex_trade_flow or comex_freight_cost, which handle completely different operations.

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 clear context: the dataset is all coded, so the tool should be used whenever codes need translating. While it doesn't explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it, the sibling tools are not viable alternatives for this function, so the lack of exclusion is acceptable. The rationale is enough for an agent to infer when to invoke it.

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