resolve

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool resolves identifiers to a canonical entity key and lists supported formats. However, it does not describe error handling, whether operation is read-only, or any side effects. Some behavioral disclosure exists but not exhaustive.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, the second lists accepted inputs and usage guidance. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 is simple (one parameter, no annotations, output schema exists). The description adequately covers the input types and when to use it. Minor gap: doesn't mention behavior for invalid identifiers, but given the output schema is available, the description is still largely 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining what the 'identifier' parameter accepts (ticker, CIK with both formats, FRED series, French dataset name). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare 'string' type in the schema.

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 tool's function: turning any identifier into an entity key that other verbs accept. It names specific input types (ticker, CIK, FRED series, French dataset name), making it distinct from siblings like fetch or discover.

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 explicitly says 'Start here when unsure what an entity is called,' giving a clear when-to-use. It also lists accepted identifier formats. It doesn't contrast directly with sibling tools, but the 'every other verb accepts' phrasing implies the workflow context.

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