Identify instrument (*IDN?)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the call selects a vendor dialect, which affects how later queries are interpreted. It stops short of saying whether that dialect persists, applies session-wide, or is required before query, so the add is useful but partial.

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 tight sentence with the primary action front-loaded and no filler. Nothing is padded and nothing essential is buried.

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 annotations cover safety. What is missing is workflow context: whether identify must precede query/write calls and what the chosen dialect implies for downstream tools. Adequate but with a clear gap for a tool that gates later behavior.

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 single 'resource' parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), including the 'omit if exactly one instrument is open' default behavior. The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is acceptable given the schema does the work, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 concrete verb and target ("Query *IDN?") plus a distinctive side effect ("pick a vendor dialect"), so an agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings such as learn_instrument or open_instrument, which plausibly also touch instrument identity.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. that an instrument must be opened first), and no indication of how this differs from learn_instrument or list_instruments. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name and sibling context.

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