resolve_identifier

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety/idempotency profile is covered structurally. The description adds that the call returns a validity verdict alongside conversions, which is useful, but says nothing about failure behavior, ambiguous or partially matched identifiers, or external source availability.

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, front-loaded with the core capability and followed by concrete usage. No filler, no restatement of the name or title.

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?

With no output schema, the description properly states what comes back (converted identifiers plus a validity verdict). The main gap is that all five parameters are optional, and the description never clarifies which combinations are valid (entity_id alone vs identifier plus scheme/country), leaving the agent to infer the call shape from the schema.

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 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter including the scheme enum and country format. The description restates the supported identifier types but adds no syntax or combination rules beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (convert/resolve) and resource (identifiers for a legal entity), plus a second capability (validity check). The named identifier types (LEI, UK company number, VAT) make the scope concrete and distinguishable from get_entity, which it explicitly references.

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?

Gives two explicit use cases: confirm a number before calling get_entity, and discover an entity's other identifiers. That is strong when-to-use guidance tied to a named sibling, but it doesn't state when NOT to use it (e.g., when a record already exists in hand, or versus search_entities).

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