dv_resolve_entities

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral note — that available options vary by configured provider — which explains variable results the annotations cannot convey. It stops short of describing return shape or failure behavior, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 tight sentences with the primary action front-loaded and no filler. Every clause carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a four-parameter tool with 0% schema description coverage and no usage guidance, the description does not say enough about how to combine kind with query/city/category to be callable with confidence.

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% across four parameters, so the description must carry the load, but it only loosely gestures at the kind enum values via 'city/district/category names or canonical model keys.' It says nothing about the query or category parameters, nor about how city interacts with the rest, so the 0% coverage gap is only partially compensated.

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 (resolve) and resources (city/district/category names, canonical model keys), which is more informative than a bare name restatement. It does not, however, differentiate itself from any of the ~30 sibling dv_ tools, so an agent still has to infer where resolution fits in the pipeline.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives, nor any prerequisite such as 'use before search to resolve a name into a key.' 'Options depend on the configured provider' is a caveat, not usage guidance, so the agent gets no routing help.

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