rb209_soil_nutrient_index_id_from_value

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden for behavior. It indicates a GET-style read and an 'individual id' result, but it does not disclose return format, error behavior, or any additional operational detail beyond the endpoint line.

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 one concise sentence with the endpoint shown first and no filler. It is efficient, though slightly under-specified.

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, no annotations, and many sibling tools, the description should clarify the exact return value and the role of countryId. It only offers a terse noun phrase and omits a required filter, leaving the tool incomplete for reliable invocation.

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 schema already documents all four parameters at 100% coverage, so the description adds no new meaning. It also omits countryId from the list of filters despite countryId being required and present in the endpoint path, creating a misleading gap.

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 endpoint, the resource ('nutrient index id'), and the filtering criteria, so the lookup intent is clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from closely named siblings such as rb209_soil_nutrient_index_by_value_methodology_country, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of the many related soil nutrient index tools. The phrase 'filtered by' only restates the input-driven nature of the call, which the schema already conveys.

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