Resolve Identifier

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds substantial beyond-annotation context: the FFATA subaward source, FY2025 start, ~24K firm coverage, and the crucial caveat that a 404 is inconclusive rather than a negative proof.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: the core resolution behavior comes first, then cost, then the parameter format, then the coverage/limitations explanation. The structure is scannable and front-loads the actionable information.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers all necessary operational context: input formats, expected output, data source, coverage size, and failure semantics. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether and how to call it 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It fully compensates by specifying that 'identifier' is 'a DUNS or a UEI' and detailing the accepted formats: 9-digit DUNS, 13-digit DUNS+4, and 12-character alphanumeric UEI.

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 and resource: resolves between legacy DUNS and current UEI identifiers, accepts either side, and returns both plus the entity name. This clearly distinguishes the tool from the long sibling list, none of which perform identifier translation.

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 explains when the result is meaningful and when it is not: a 404 means 'not in this FFATA-derived crosswalk' rather than 'not in SAM'. It also names the official SAM translator as the authoritative alternative and explains why it is unavailable, giving the agent clear interpretive guardrails.

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