resolve_operator

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses the fuzzy-matching typo behavior and the exact-string output expectation. It does not cover edge cases like no-match behavior, but the key behavioral traits are present.

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 sentences plus an example line. Every sentence earns its place: purpose, example inputs, and fuzzy behavior are all stated without filler. The most important information 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?

For a simple resolver with an output schema, the description covers purpose, fuzzy behavior, and expected output. The missing region semantics is a real gap, but the overall definition is largely complete and actionable for the common query-only case.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the query parameter through examples and semantics, but the region parameter is never mentioned at all, leaving one of the two parameters completely undocumented.

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 'Resolve' and names both the input (natural-language city/company name) and the output (exact OSD/default retailer strings for the SENS API). This clearly differentiates it from the sibling search/get tariff tools.

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 clearly indicates when to use this tool: when you have a fuzzy or natural-language operator name and need the canonical API strings. It gives concrete examples. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternative tools, but the intended scenario is clear.

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