Resolve names to URIs

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, so safety is covered. The description adds the important precondition that this is a lookup that feeds downstream filters, but says nothing about result format, how many results, or failure behavior when a prefix has no match. With annotations covering the profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Tight and front-loaded: the core purpose is stated first, then the enumerated kinds, then the ordering instruction. Slightly long in the enumeration but every clause is informative.

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?

Complete for an autocomplete-resolve tool: it names every kind, the URI target, and the sequencing relative to search tools. No output schema exists, but for a lookup tool the missing piece (what a result looks like / how many) is minor given annotations cover read-only open-world behavior.

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 50%; 'lang', 'count', and 'prefix' are documented in-schema (with examples), but 'kind' only appears as an enum in the schema with no in-description explanation. The description does list the concept/source/etc. values but does not map them to the 'kind' parameter, so it adds marginal value over the schema. Baseline 3.

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 states a specific verb (resolve/autocomplete) and resource (names → URIs) and enumerates exactly what each 'kind' resolves to (concepts→Wikipedia, sources→domain). It distinguishes itself from all siblings, which are search/retrieval tools that consume these URIs.

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?

Explicitly says 'Call this BEFORE filtering by entity, source or category,' which tells the agent the ordering constraint relative to the search tools. That is the key when-to-use guidance for this tool.

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