Resolve an operator name

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the description's added value is disclosing the return structure (method, confidence, caveats) and noting that it is an optional pre-step because other tools resolve internally. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by usage context. Every sentence earns its place; there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 an output schema present, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers purpose, usage, and optionality sufficiently for a single-parameter tool. The guidance about other tools resolving internally is valuable context.

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 description coverage is 100% and the parameter already includes examples and a clear description. The tool description adds little beyond the schema—it reaffirms 'free-text' but does not introduce new semantics. Baseline of 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 states the action (resolve) and the resource (free-text operator name to curated Omega record and CMS chain mapping). It explicitly mentions the output includes method, confidence, and caveats, and differentiates from siblings by noting that other tools resolve names internally, making this tool for disambiguation and feasibility checks.

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: disambiguate names or check whether CMS metrics are possible. It also states that other tools resolve names internally, so calling this first is optional, which effectively tells when not to use it. This is clear and actionable.

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