dart_resolve

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

Given no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns candidates when company name is ambiguous, which is valuable behavioral context. It does not mention side effects, but the tool is inherently read-only and non-destructive.

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 two sentences in Korean, front-loading the purpose and efficiently covering input/output/edge cases with no unnecessary details.

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 simple resolver with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: accepted inputs, returned fields, and ambiguity handling. It is fully adequate for the agent to invoke correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter 'query', the description fully explains valid inputs (stock code, unique number, or company name). This adds critical meaning beyond the schema's type string alone.

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 company identifiers, specifies accepted input formats (6-digit stock code, 8-digit unique number, company name), and details output fields (corp_code, company name, stock code, optional matches). This distinguishes it from sibling tools which are more specialized.

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 implicitly says to use when you need to resolve an identifier to company information, and it lists valid input types. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like get_company or state when not to use.

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