guide

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the topics covered (tool choice, id format, filter vocabulary), which is useful, but says nothing about the return format or that this is a static, read-only reference rather than an action.

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?

Three short fragments with no filler, and the primary purpose (choosing among tools) is front-loaded before the secondary topics. It is terse but each element earns its place.

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 annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, the description is the sole source of context. It lists the covered topics but does not explain the nature of the output or how an agent should apply the guidance, leaving a moderate gap.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond the schema. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter-level omissions exist.

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 names a specific function (guidance on tool selection) and lists concrete coverage areas: id format and filter vocabulary. It is clearly not a data-query tool like its siblings, though the fragmentary style makes it slightly less crisp than a full sentence would.

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 phrase 'How to choose among these tools' implies this is a meta-reference to consult before selecting siblings, but it never explicitly says when to call it (e.g., before first use) or when not to. Usage 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.