Resolve CIMS party

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

Annotations already declare the operation is read-only and idempotent. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it explicitly rejects raw 0x addresses and clarifies the accepted input forms. This gives the agent useful expectations about constraints and edge cases, though it does not detail failure modes or output structure.

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?

The description is two sentences with no filler. The core action and accepted inputs are front-loaded, and the key refusal behavior is placed right after. Every clause earns its place and the length is appropriate for a single-parameter resolution tool.

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 simple one-parameter read-only tool, the description covers accepted inputs, the refusal case, and the nature of the result ('routable party'). The lack of an output schema is partially mitigated by stating the output type. It could be slightly more complete by noting what happens on unresolvable input, but overall it is sufficiently complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 only defines 'query' as a non-empty string, so schema description coverage is 0%. The description fully compensates by explaining that the query may be a legal name, handle, or CIMS ID in the R-institution-account format, and that raw 0x addresses are refused. This is substantial semantic value beyond the raw schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Resolve') and resource ('legal name, handle, or CIMS ID') and clarifies the output is a routable party. The added 'Refuses raw 0x addresses' clause further distinguishes its scope from other CIMS tools. This is clear, specific, and immediately tells an agent what the tool is for.

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 when to use the tool: when a legal name, handle, or CIMS ID needs to be converted to a routable party. It also gives one exclusion boundary by refusing raw 0x addresses. However, it does not explicitly compare against siblings like cims_validate_id or state when not to use this tool, leaving some routing to inference.

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