resolve_domain

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds behavioral context by stating that it supports official names, abbreviations, and fuzzy matching, which helps the agent understand input flexibility. However, it does not disclose failure behavior (e.g., what happens on no match or multiple potential matches) or the exact return format, which is a notable gap given the absence of annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every phrase adds value. No filler or repetition.

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?

The tool is simple (1 param, no output schema, no annotations), and the description covers the core action and input flexibility. It implies the return value is the domain code, but it does not explicitly describe edge cases like ambiguous matches. Overall, it is sufficient for a straightforward conversion tool, though not exhaustive.

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?

Even though schema coverage is 100%, the description enriches the meaning of the 'query' parameter by explicitly stating that it accepts abbreviations and fuzzy matches. This goes beyond the schema example, adding practical guidance on what values are acceptable.

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 'Convert' and resource 'region name to BPS domain code', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_domains. It also mentions supported input forms (official names, abbreviations, fuzzy matching), which further clarifies the tool's unique role.

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 makes clear when to use the tool: whenever a region name (including abbreviations or fuzzy inputs) needs to be converted to a BPS domain code. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as when listing all domains is the goal.

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