resolve_users

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses that ambiguous names return candidate lists for user disambiguation. It also communicates the accepted input varieties (partial names, emails, 'me'). This adds meaningful behavioral context without contradicting the annotation.

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 efficient sentences contain zero filler and front-load the core purpose, with the behavioral nuance about ambiguous names added as a secondary sentence.

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 tool with no output schema, the description should clarify the return format. It mentions candidate lists for ambiguous cases but does not specify their structure, nor what happens for unambiguous matches or not-found cases. The single-parameter design keeps the gap modest, but some important call semantics remain undocumented.

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 for the undocumented 'queries' parameter. It explains what query strings represent and the range of acceptable values, though it does not explicitly describe array semantics or limits.

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 tool resolves human-friendly identifiers (names, partial names, emails, user IDs, 'me') into Splitwise user IDs, with a specific verb and resource. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like quick_add_expense or money_summary, as it is the only identifier-resolution tool.

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 intended use is implied: use when you need to convert a user identifier into a Splitwise user ID. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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