Resolve Applicant Code

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares this is a safe read. The description adds that it uses 'official JPO applicant endpoints,' which is somewhat useful context. However, it doesn't disclose error behavior for invalid codes, rate limits, or what happens on ambiguous matches.

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?

A single, efficient sentence that front-loads the bidirectional resolution capability 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?

For a 3-required-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, the description could explain the return format (name string vs code string) and edge cases. It covers the core purpose but leaves gaps an agent might need, though annotations and the complete schema carry much of the load.

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%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters including enum values and the 'name: applicant string, code: applicant code' semantics. The description adds no parameter detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 bidirectional verb+resource: resolve applicant code to name or name to code via JPO official endpoints. Clear purpose, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling lookup tools like lookup_number_relation.

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 implies when to use it (when you have one identifier form and need the other), but gives no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, no prerequisites, and doesn't mention the sibling lookup_number_relation which seems related.

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