Search the ELID catalog

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, and the description adds substantive behavioral detail: case-insensitive substring matching, exact seven-digit LWIN lookup, ordering, and cursor-based pagination. It does not describe the result shape, but that is less critical given the read-only annotation and search-oriented behavior.

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 three sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and ordering, then covers both query modes, sibling routing, and pagination efficiently.

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?

For a read-only search tool, the description covers query modes, ordering, pagination, and sibling differentiation. A small gap is that it does not explicitly state whether q and lwin are mutually exclusive or what happens if both are supplied, and there is no mention of the returned identity fields since no output schema exists.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: it explains case-insensitivity, gives examples, clarifies the 'after' cursor semantics ('keep other filters unchanged'), and states the default limit. Every parameter is made actionable.

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 verb and resource ('List ELID wine identities') and adds ordering ('ordered by ELID'). It also explicitly contrasts with elid_match_wine, so an agent can distinguish the tools without opening schemas.

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?

It states exactly when to use q versus lwin with concrete examples, and explicitly routes free-text label searches to elid_match_wine. Pagination instructions are also provided, leaving little ambiguity about use cases.

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