os_linked_ids_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering safety and repeatability. The description adds only the API source, with no behavior on not-found cases or result structure. It neither contradicts nor enriches the annotations meaningfully.

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 a single, focused sentence, which is concise. However, it is so brief that it omits crucial context, so it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description does not explain what 'linked identifiers' means, how identifierType inference works, or any usage context. With many sibling tools and no guidance, an agent may misapply this tool.

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 only 33% (identifierType has a description, identifier does not). The description provides no parameter information, so it fails to compensate for the missing schema coverage on the required identifier parameter.

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 states a clear verb ('Resolve') and resource ('linked identifiers'), naming specific identifier types (UPRN/USRN/TOID). This distinguishes it from generic OS search tools, though it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives like os_linked_ids_identifiers.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the large sibling set (e.g., os_places_by_uprn, ons_geo_by_uprn), an agent has no basis for choosing this over similar lookups.

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