resolve_person

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: returns closest single match, and returns null if no candidate. However, it does not mention authentication needs, rate limits, or error conditions.

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 with no redundancy. Purpose, process, and result are stated efficiently and clearly.

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?

Given the simple parameter set and no output schema, the description covers input, behavior, and output completely. It is sufficient for an agent to understand and use the tool 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?

Schema has 0% coverage for the single parameter 'name_or_email'. The description adds meaning by stating it accepts a name or email and resolves to an identity, but does not specify format requirements or if partial/fuzzy matching is supported.

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 verb 'Resolve' and resource 'name or email to a single identity', distinguishes from sibling 'list_identities' by implying a single match, and specifies the return value (identity or null).

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 implies usage for matching a single identity from a name/email, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'list_identities' or 'who_worked_on'. It lacks exclusion criteria or prerequisite conditions.

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