resolve

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds no behavioral context such as ambiguity handling, normalization rules, or match limits. Listing the returned key types is largely covered by the output schema, so there is little beyond annotations.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the parenthetical output list is compact. Every element contributes to identifying the tool's purpose.

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?

For a one-parameter, read-only resolver with rich schema and output schema, the description covers the core operation. It leaves gaps around ambiguous matches and sibling-tool selection, which an agent may need in practice.

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?

The single query parameter has 100% schema description coverage and the schema already lists ticker, CNPJ, cd_cvm, and company name. The description's 'any identifier' adds no syntax or format detail beyond that.

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 uses the specific verb 'Resolve' and states the resource, identifiers, and the canonical outputs (cd_cvm, CNPJ, ticker, name). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like search_company or get_tickers, so it stops short of a 5.

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 implies the tool is used when an agent has an identifier and needs CVM keys, but it gives no explicit when/when-not guidance and never names alternatives such as search_company or list_companies. An agent must infer the routing decision.

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