Resolve FQAN -> Entity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds value by listing the specific return fields (entity_id, name, summary, category, tags, entity_url) and mentioning the error code 404 for missing agents. No contradiction with annotations.

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 very concise, with a clear first sentence, a format explanation, an example, a list of returned fields, and a brief error note. No unnecessary words, well-structured for quick parsing.

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 there is no output schema, the description compensates by listing all returned fields and the error scenario. It also explains the tool's place in the workflow (producing entity_id for other tools). This makes it complete and self-contained for an agent to understand how to use it.

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 input schema has only one required parameter, fqan, with a schema description that covers format. The description adds an example ('stocks.alice.zynd') and explains the outcome, but since schema coverage is 100% and already detailed, the description adds marginal extra value.

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: resolving a fully-qualified agent name to an entity_id. It provides the FQAN format, an example, and the list of returned fields, making it easy to understand what the tool does. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like zyndai_get_agent by noting that the returned entity_id can be passed to those tools.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool (when you have a FQAN and need an entity_id) and how the output can be used with other tools (zyndai_get_agent, zyndai_call_agent). It does not explicitly mention when not to use it, but the context is clear and provides sufficient guidance.

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