resolve_entity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns 'best match + confidence' and implies a read-only nature via 'BEFORE any write', but it doesn't detail behavior on no match, system access, or data modification. This is adequate but not rich.

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, no fluff. The first sentence states the action and result, the second gives crucial usage context. Every word earns its place.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose, return value (best match + confidence), and critical usage timing. It lacks details like no-match behavior or output structure, but for a resolution tool with 100% parameter schema coverage, this is a solid, near-complete description.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are already fully described. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, thus baseline 3 is appropriate.

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's function: resolving messy entity names or partial records into canonical matches. It uses a specific verb ('Resolve') and resource ('entity name') and distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing 'canonical match across known systems' and 'Returns best match + confidence', which differentiates it from fuzzy matching tools.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use this BEFORE any write or action on customer/account/vendor data', providing clear guidance on when to invoke. It doesn't name alternatives like 'fuzzy_match_records', but the pre-write context effectively distinguishes its use case from sibling tools.

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