Resolve Contact

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds substantial behavioral context: the resolution order, the limited preview nature of the response, notes being redacted unless include_notes=true, the $0.05 cost, API key requirement, and the stable/alternate tool name. No contradiction exists.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, resolution order, return shape, gallery alternative, notes behavior, usage preference, naming compatibility, cost, and auth requirement. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and remains structured and scannable.

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 output schema, annotations, and rich sibling context, the description is complete for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it. It covers the resolution algorithm, return preview, notes behavior, alternatives, cost, and API key requirement, leaving no critical gap.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that 'name' is a nickname or surface name, that the lookup follows a specific resolution sequence, and that notes are omitted/redacted unless include_notes=true. The query parameter is acknowledged as an alias for name, adding practical semantic value.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Resolve a nickname or surface name to a Dayze Contacts row' and even spells out the lookup chain (person_aliases → exact name → slug → unique substring). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like get_person_photos and get_person_aliases by stating exactly what it returns and what it is for.

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 'Prefer this before money or relationship tools when the agent only has a nickname,' giving a direct when-to-use rule. It also names get_person_photos as the alternative for a full gallery, and the notes redaction behavior tells the agent when include_notes matters. This is clear usage guidance with alternatives.

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