resolve_name

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/openWorld/idempotent safety, so the description adds value by disclosing return behavior: aliases grouped by catalog (Gaia, TIC, KOI, etc.) and confirmed planets in the system. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them, though it could have mentioned any pagination or error behavior if relevant.

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 efficiently written in three short paragraphs, each earning its place: the first states the purpose and return value, the second gives usage context with concrete examples, and the third covers an additional use case. No redundant or filler content appears.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter), the presence of an output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description covers all essential operational context: what it resolves, what it returns, when to prefer it over siblings, and an extra scenario ('all designations'). It fully equips an agent to invoke it 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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage for the single 'name' parameter with its own examples and description. The tool description reinforces the same concepts but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema already conveys, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 specifies the tool's action ('Resolve') and resource ('any planet or star name, alias, or catalog identifier') and states the outcome ('canonical name'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by instructing to use it BEFORE get_planet or search_planets, making its unique role clear.

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?

It provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('when the user provides a name that might not match the archive's naming convention') and cites specific problem cases like missing spaces and alternate designations. It also names the alternative tools (get_planet, search_planets) that this should precede, fulfilling the when/alternatives requirement.

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