Resolve conversation actors

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only behavior is already known. The description adds the batch-call behavior and the fact that it returns participant info, but does not disclose additional traits such as error handling or partial result behavior. With annotations covering safety, this is adequate but not rich.

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, efficient sentence that states the action, object, and purpose without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the key information and contains no fluff.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers purpose and usage. It mentions 'detailed participant information' as the return concept. It could have added a note about unresolved IDs or response format, but given the simplicity and read-only annotation, it is nearly 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 input schema covers the only parameter (actor_ids) with a clear description and example ('['A-12345', 'V-67890']'), achieving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Resolve') with a clear resource ('a list of ActorIds') and outcome ('detailed participant information'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing the batch aspect and the conversation participant context, making it clear this is different from single-actor lookups like RetrieveActorDetails.

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 states when to use it: 'use this to understand who the participants in a conversation are.' It also implies batch use ('in one batch call'), which guides the agent to choose this over single-actor resolve tools. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear.

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