resolve_label

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

With no annotations, the description should carry behavioral details, but it only states the function. Missing information on case sensitivity, exact vs fuzzy matching, multiple matches, or response format.

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 a single clear sentence with no wasted words. Every part is necessary for stating the core function.

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 tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits important context like what 'resolve' entails (exact match? returns multiple concepts?), which would help the agent anticipate behavior.

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%, and the description adds minimal value beyond repeating parameter names. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema already documents each parameter's meaning.

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 clearly states the verb 'resolve' and the resource 'a label text to concepts in a vocabulary', making the tool's purpose specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from siblings like 'search_concepts' or 'autocomplete', though the action is distinct enough.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its many siblings (e.g., search_concepts, autocomplete, get_concept). There are no when-not or alternative recommendations.

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