resolve_company

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the return shape (candidate list plus per-candidate anchors) and warns about the downstream failure mode of ambiguous names. It stops short of stating that this is a non-mutating lookup, or noting any rate/caching behavior, 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does and what it returns, followed by the operational caveat. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

This is a low-complexity single-parameter resolver with an output schema, so return-value detail is already covered structurally. The description adds the disambiguation intent and the verification caveat that an agent would otherwise miss; only input-format expectations remain underspecified.

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% for the single 'name' parameter, so the description must compensate; it clarifies that the input is a possibly ambiguous company name rather than a canonical identifier. It adds that framing but gives no guidance on accepted formats (full legal name vs. short name vs. ticker) or how to read the returned anchors, leaving a meaningful gap.

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 gives a specific verb and resource — disambiguating a company name into a definite investigation subject — and names the identifier kinds produced (listed code / CIK / QID). It does not explicitly contrast with any sibling, but the sibling set (manual_findings, probe_sources, build_report, risk_sweep, etc.) has no resolver-like overlap, so the distinction is clear in practice.

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 supplies a concrete precondition and sequencing rule: same-name subjects must be verified via the unified social credit code before collection begins, otherwise red-line determinations will be misattributed. What is missing is any statement of when this tool should be skipped or what to do if disambiguation fails, but the usage context is otherwise unambiguous.

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