resolve_service

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It clarifies that 'purchase_mode' is not a price but a topology fact, which is helpful. However, it does not disclose what happens if both parameters are supplied, error conditions, authentication needs, or whether the operation is guaranteed read-only. The description adds value but leaves notable behavioral gaps.

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 three sentences: purpose, return fields with clarification, and a usage constraint. It is front-loaded, efficient, and contains no redundant or vague language. 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 the moderate complexity (2 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers the core purpose, return structure, and a key constraint. However, it omits error behavior (e.g., if neither parameter is given) and other potential edge cases. It is mostly complete for a simple resolution tool but could be more thorough.

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 must compensate. It states that the parameters are used to identify a service and that exactly one must be supplied. This adds semantic meaning beyond the schema's type and default. It does not give detailed format guidance, but it sufficiently explains the role and constraint of each parameter.

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 action ('Resolve a DPYC service') and the two possible identifiers (name or npub). It also lists the return fields, which differentiates it from sibling tools like list_services (which lists all services) or lookup_member (which resolves a member). The resource and verb are specific and immediately understandable.

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 implies usage (when you want to resolve a service by name or npub) and adds a constraint ('Supply exactly one'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like list_services or resolve_authority_for. No exclusions or context about when not to use it are provided.

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