resolve_identity

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds value by stating the requirement of Platform Mode and the output type (slug). No contradictions; behavioral traits are sufficiently disclosed.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, and the usage context is provided succinctly. Every sentence adds value.

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, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description fully covers what an agent needs: input types, output concept, usage context, and a prerequisite. No gaps.

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 has full coverage (100%) with a clear description for the single parameter. The description adds extra meaning by specifying the types (email, phone, or agent ID) and the resolution result (slug), going beyond the schema's generic description.

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 explicitly states the action ('Resolve'), the inputs ('email, phone, or agent ID'), and the output ('Temporal Cortex slug'). It also provides context for usage ('find someone's Open Scheduling profile'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like 'resolve_contact' or 'resolve_datetime'.

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 gives a clear use case ('before querying their availability or booking a meeting') and mentions a prerequisite ('Requires Platform Mode'). While it doesn't explicitly list exclusions or when not to use, the guidance is adequate for a simple tool.

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