resolve_entity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explain match semantics, return format, pagination behavior, or whether partial/fuzzy matching is supported, leaving significant ambiguity for a lookup tool.

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 concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and avoids redundancy with the schema.

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 and no annotations, the description must explain return values and behavior. It does not describe the response structure, pagination (though cursor is in schema), or how the various optional filters interact. The tool has 8 parameters, but the description covers only the primary lookup keys, leaving the rest unexplained.

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 only 38%, so the description must compensate. It mentions CIK, ticker, and name but does not clarify that 'q' likely handles name searches, nor does it address undocumented parameters like entity_type and state_of_incorp. The description adds minimal parameter-level guidance.

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 resolves and looks up companies in the entity directory by CIK, ticker, or name. It specifies a concrete verb ('resolve'), resource ('companies in entity directory'), and search keys, which distinguishes it from the many sibling search 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 gives clear context: use this tool when you need to resolve a company by CIK, ticker, or name. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is sufficient for a lookup tool.

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