Resolve names to IDs

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

Annotations already declare this tool as read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those annotations, including that NAICS matching works on titles rather than topics and that large companies may have multiple registrations requiring name/location disambiguation. It does not cover no-match or error behavior, so it falls just short of the highest score.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then uses concise bullets for each resolution mode. Despite its length, every bullet explains a distinct enum mode and earns its place.

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 two required parameters, the enum, the presence of an output schema, and rich annotations, the description supplies everything an agent needs to select the correct mode and interpret the query. It also covers ambiguous company matches and routes unsupported identifiers to the correct sibling tool.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden of explaining the parameters. It does this thoroughly by explaining what each enum value of `kind` means, how `query` should be interpreted for each kind, and what each mode returns.

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 action and scope: it turns user-mentioned names into the IDs and codes that other tools accept. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by positioning itself as the starting point before using search, get, or other tools, and it names alternatives for specific cases.

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?

It explicitly says when to start here: when the user names an agency, describes their work, or names a company. It also gives alternatives and exceptions, such as using search(companies) for ranking by award history and get(entity) for CAGE codes.

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