Resolve Identifier

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world hints. The description adds transparency about edge cases: returning 'ambiguous_query' when text matches both a gene and a disease, and 'invalid_input' if both query and identifier are supplied with conflicting values.

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, no fluff. All essential information is front-loaded: purpose, parameter behavior, and usage constraints. Every sentence adds value.

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 moderate complexity, the presence of an output schema, and rich annotations, the description is complete. It covers parameter semantics, edge cases, and usage guidance without needing to describe return values.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining the semantics of all three parameters: 'kind' (auto/gene/disease), 'query' (the text to resolve), and 'identifier' (alias for query, excluding concurrent use). This adds meaning beyond the basic string types 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 purpose: resolving free text to canonical gene/disease identifiers. It specifies the resources (HGNC/MONDO) and distinguishes from siblings like search_genes and search_diseases by focusing on exact matches and identifier lookup.

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?

Explicitly describes when to use 'kind' parameter to disambiguate, default behavior ('auto'), and the alias relationship between 'query' and 'identifier'. Provides clear instructions to avoid ambiguous queries and invalid inputs.

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