Get Entity Name

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether an unknown ID returns null/error, whether lookup requires a specific connection or permissions, or rate-limit behavior. Read-only nature is only implied by 'Resolve'.

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?

A single eight-word sentence, fully front-loaded with the operation and its input/output. Nothing wasted, nothing missing that belongs at this level.

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 2-required-param resolution tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 33% schema coverage, the description is too thin. An agent needs to know the entityType vocabulary and failure behavior; neither is present.

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 only 33%: the 'connection' param has a schema description, but entityId and entityType are bare strings with no description. The description doesn't explain accepted entityType values (e.g. HOST, SERVICE, APPLICATION) or ID formats, so it fails to compensate for the gap.

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 both the input (entity ID) and output (display name), making the transformation explicit. It clearly differs from the inverse sibling dynatrace_get_entity_id and from listing 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?

Implied usage is clear from the purpose, but no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or pointers to alternatives like get_entity_id are given. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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