resolve_size_ids

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does well: it describes the return payload (matched IDs with their group, plus a list of unresolvable labels) and the one-to-many mapping behavior. It does not mention auth needs, rate limits, or error semantics, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Purpose and downstream destination are front-loaded, with the ambiguity caveat last. Four sentences, all carrying information, though the final 'Because "M" or "42"...' sentence is dense and could be tightened.

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 2-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, downstream usage, the shape of the return value (matched IDs + group + unresolved list), and the one-to-many behavior an agent must anticipate. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining why the 'sizes' array can map to multiple IDs per label (labels recur across women's/men's/kids' groups) and by naming the group dimension used for filtering, adding real interpretive 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Resolve human-readable size labels ... to numeric Vinted size IDs') and names the exact downstream consumers (search_items.sizeIds, search_all_items.sizeIds). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling resolve_color_ids and the search_* tools.

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?

Gives concrete downstream guidance ('pass them all to sizeIds to cast a wide net, or filter by group name if you need a specific category') and explains the ambiguity condition that produces multiple results. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use this / use X instead' clause, so it stops short of a 5.

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