resolve_entity_by_query

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose read-only, always-available semantics plus the resolution states (not_found | unique | ambiguous). It does not cover permission requirements, rate limits, or whether tag/filter args broaden or narrow results, leaving a modest gap.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and the return contract. No filler, though the second sentence packs a few concepts without fully unpacking them.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the resolution semantics are a useful bonus. But for a 10-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions, the description is not complete enough to guide correct invocation.

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?

Ten parameters at 0% schema description coverage, and the description only gestures at a free-text query and an entity type. Nine parameters (tags, scope, offset, extended, owner_ids, status_ids, category_ids, limit_candidates) are undocumented in both schema and description, so an agent must guess their meaning and interactions.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (search experiments or items by query) and the output shape (compact candidates for disambiguation), which separates it from the list_* siblings that return full entities. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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?

"Use it to find an id before acting on it" gives a clear use context and positions the tool as a precursor to mutation tools. No explicit when-not or named alternatives are given, but the workflow guidance is concrete.

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