papertrail_for_symbol

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It mentions 'current context' and 'cached tracker rationale' but does not detail what 'current context' includes or what 'cached' implies regarding fresh data.

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 concise at one sentence, but the structure is a bit dense. It could be improved by breaking into two sentences for clarity, but it's still efficient.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, this description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values or how parameters interact, leaving significant gaps for the agent to interpret.

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 7 parameters and only 14% schema description coverage, the description does not compensate. It doesn't explain key parameters like 'id', 'ref', 'lang', 'limit', or 'allow_ambiguous', leaving the agent without crucial usage details.

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 primary action: 'Resolve a symbol' suggests ambiguity, but the description could be more specific about the external process that is not present in the text. The description is fairly adequate, but can be improved.

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 mentions 'resolve a symbol' but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives in the sibling set. It lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over similar ones.

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