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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it uses pre-built s_book/s_author n-gram indexes for partial matching and returns per-type results with confidence scores. It stops short of describing result ordering or ambiguity handling, but the value added is genuine.

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 body is tight and front-loads the mechanism, the type behavior, and the redirect to sibling tools. The opening Arabic line "تحويل اسم إلى معرِّف" duplicates the title verbatim, which is a small piece of dead weight in an otherwise efficient description.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does state that it returns up to `limit` results per type with confidence scores, which is what an agent needs to consume the result. It could go slightly further on ordering/tie-breaking, but the essentials are present for this read-only resolver.

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 both enums are documented in-schema, so the description's explanation of type='book'/'author'/'any' largely restates it. The examples for query add marginal color but the schema already carries the semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (disambiguate/resolve) and resource (Arabic name fragments to book_ids/author_ids), and the opening line tells the agent exactly what outcome to expect. It distinguishes itself from search_pages/search_books/search_authors, which it explicitly names as the tools it precedes.

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 this BEFORE search_pages / search_books / search_authors when the user mentions a name but doesn't know the exact ID" gives an explicit when-to-use rule plus the alternative tools it replaces in that scenario. Nothing is left to inference.

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