Resolve names and ids

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by enumerating the kind of public details returned (corp/alliance of a character, ticker/members of a corp, security of a system), but says nothing about batching behavior, partial results, or failure when a name doesn't resolve.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb and scope first, then the entity list, then the detail payload. The long enumeration is justified because it defines the tool's domain, though the trailing '...' examples are slightly loose for a formal spec.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return shape; it sketches the detail fields but does not say how results are keyed (by id vs name) or how unmatched inputs are surfaced. Sufficient to attempt a call, insufficient to interpret the response confidently.

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% – ids, names, and details are all documented in the schema, including the 'default true' semantics of details. The description only loosely gestures at the details flag ('with public details') and adds nothing about the maxItems caps or exact-name matching beyond what the schema states. Baseline 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?

Uses a specific verb ('Resolves') plus an explicit enumeration of the resource classes (characters, corporations, alliances, factions, systems, regions, constellations, stations, items) and states that it maps a name or id to its counterpart. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like search_items or system_info, though it never names an alternative directly.

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 bidirectional mapping (name→id / id→name) implies the usage scenario, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when to prefer item_info / system_info instead, and no mention of batch limits or prerequisites. Adequate inference only.

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