resolve_abbreviation

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

With no annotations, the description explains the core behavior (resolving abbreviation to law name and ID) but lacks details on error handling, multiple results, or the exact response format. It does not contradict any facts.

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, front-loaded with purpose and usage context. Every sentence is meaningful, with no wasted words.

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 (1 required param, no output schema), the description sufficiently covers functionality. It could mention the output format, but the lack is not critical for this diagnostic tool.

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%, and the parameter description provides examples. The tool description adds no additional semantic information beyond what the schema already provides, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 resolves official law names and law_ids from abbreviations, and identifies it as a diagnostic tool. This distinguishes it from siblings like search_law or get_law, which serve different purposes.

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 does not explicitly guide when to use this tool vs alternatives. Calling it a 'diagnostic tool' implies it's for checking abbreviation coverage, but no direct 'when-not-to-use' or alternative references are provided.

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