resolve_person

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions confidence tiers and hydration but omits details on side effects, error states, permissions, or what happens with no matches. The behavior is only partially transparent.

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 sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second adds a key behavioral hint. Every sentence 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 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter docs for context and role_hint, does not describe the return format beyond confidence tiers, and omits error handling. More detail is needed.

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 0%, so description should explain all parameters. It only describes name (implicitly) and jurisdiction_hint, leaving context and role_hint unexplained. This is insufficient for the 4-parameter tool.

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 'disambiguate' and the resource 'person by name across state legislators', distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_entity or search_entities. It also specifies return of matching Person entities with confidence tiers.

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?

The description provides a usage hint about jurisdiction_hint triggering upstream hydration but does not explicitly say when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No comparison to sibling tools is given.

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