resolve_reference

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it states that the tool accepts partial, misremembered, or colloquial phrasings, and that the model's internal knowledge is unreliable, which explains the tool's necessity. No contradiction with 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 consists of two sentences, both essential. The first sentence is front-loaded with the action ('Call this') and the exact scope, while the second sentence reinforces the need and urgency. There is no redundant information or unnecessary elaboration.

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 simple single-parameter read-only tool, the description covers the key aspects: what it does, when to use it, and why it is needed. It omits details about the return format or error behavior, but with strong annotations and a clear purpose, the description is sufficiently complete for the agent to act correctly.

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?

The schema describes the 'query' parameter as 'The quote, lyric, slang term, or meme phrase to resolve' with 100% coverage. The description further enriches the parameter semantics by clarifying that partial, misremembered, or colloquial phrasings are acceptable inputs, giving the agent a better understanding of the expected input format.

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 the specific verb 'resolve' and clearly identifies the resource: ex-YU film quotes, song lyrics, slang terms, and memes. It even notes the comprehensive scope ('ANY') and explicitly differentiates this tool as the required handler for these reference types, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this for ANY ex-YU film quote...' and even instructs the agent not to answer from memory without invoking it. It also explains why the tool is necessary (model's internal knowledge is unreliable), giving clear context and no ambiguity about when to invoke it.

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