os_linked_ids_identifiers

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, which cover the safety and idempotency profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond stating the endpoint. It does not mention what happens if the identifier is not found, what the response structure contains, or any pagination or error behavior. With annotations present, the bar is lower, but the description adds almost nothing beyond the endpoint URI.

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 extremely short, which is good for conciseness, but it is under-specified. One sentence that repeats the tool name and endpoint provides minimal information. It is not structured to front-load useful context; it simply names the operation without explaining what the agent needs to know.

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?

Given the output schema exists, the description need not explain return values, but it still fails to cover basic context: what a 'linked identifier' is, what the endpoint accepts, and how this relates to sibling tools like os_linked_ids_get. With over 90 sibling tools and a 0% schema description coverage, this is inadequate for an agent to select and use the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not. The only required parameter 'identifier' is left completely unexplained – the description does not clarify what kind of identifier (e.g., OS Linked Identifiers ID, a UPRN, a TOID) is expected or its format. The 'tool' parameter is a const and self-explanatory, but the core parameter lacks any semantic explanation.

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 'Resolve linked identifiers using /identifiers/{id}.' is essentially a rephrasing of the tool name 'os_linked_ids_identifiers' combined with the API endpoint. It does not state what 'linked identifiers' are, what resource they refer to, or how this differs from sibling tools like 'os_linked_ids_get' or 'os_linked_ids_feature_types'. It reads as a tautology of the name and the endpoint.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools in the 'os_linked_ids_*' family or other lookup tools. The description provides no context, no prerequisites, and no examples of when an agent would choose this over alternatives.

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