resolve_color_ids

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses case-insensitive matching, acceptance of Vinted internal codes, and that color catalogues are shared across countries. It does not disclose what happens on unknown/invalid color names, whether matching returns partial results, or the shape of the resolved output.

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?

Three tight sentences with zero filler: purpose first, matching behavior second, alternative last. Every sentence earns its place and the key routing information is front-loaded.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must stand alone for a two-param resolution tool. It covers purpose, accepted inputs, and the alternative path well, but leaves the return value format (e.g., a name-to-ID mapping) and failure behavior to inference.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the country enum and default. The description reinforces usage of the colors parameter but adds no format, validation, or error semantics beyond what the schema and its enum already state.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (resolve color names to numeric Vinted color IDs) and names the exact downstream parameters it feeds (search_items.colorIds / search_all_items.colorIds). This clearly separates it from search_items, get_colors, and resolve_size_ids among its siblings.

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 tells the agent when to call this tool (to obtain numeric color IDs) and names a concrete alternative path: passing color names straight to search_items.color[] where they resolve automatically. The routing decision is fully spelled out.

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