resolve_standard_identifier

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

Annotations already mark it as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds significant behavioral detail: tries local regex first (fast, no network), falls back to source APIs, and returns all candidates when ambiguous. This goes well beyond annotation coverage.

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?

Three sentences, all substantive. The primary purpose is front-loaded, followed by concise behavioral details. No redundant or filler content.

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?

With a single parameter fully described in the schema, an output schema present, and annotations covering safety, the description provides enough context: normalization, fallback behavior, ambiguity handling. Return values are unnecessary because output schema exists.

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?

The schema description for the sole parameter 'raw' covers 100% of the parameter semantics. The tool description does not add extra meaning about the parameter beyond calling it a 'messy standard citation string', which mirrors the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema does the heavy lifting.

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 normalizes a messy standard citation string to its canonical form, with a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from siblings like search_standards and get_standard, which focus on discovery or retrieval rather than normalization.

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 context: you use this when you have a messy citation string. It explains the local-first then API-fallback behavior, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives like batch_resolve. Clear context is present, but exclusions are missing.

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