resolve_entity

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: returns best match with confidence score, driving features, runner-up alternatives, and promises no silent merge. This is transparent for a read-like resolution tool, though no side-effect details are needed.

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, front-loaded with the core action. Every part adds value: the verb, resource, hint role, and return structure. 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 resolution tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter roles, and return structure (confidence, features, alternatives). Lacks error handling or edge cases, but overall adequate.

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 0%. The description mentions optional hints (state, employer, kind) disambiguate but provides no constraints, valid values, or examples. The 'name' parameter gets minimal context. This adds little beyond parameter names.

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' and resource 'name/organization to a canonical entity', making the tool's purpose clear. It distinguishes from siblings like search and entity_profile by focusing on disambiguation to a canonical entity.

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 implies use when disambiguating a name to a known entity via optional hints, but does not explicitly state when to use or avoid this tool compared to siblings like entity_profile or search. No when-not or alternative references.

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