get_document_id_from_title

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds valuable behavioral details: case-insensitive exact match first, then best partial match fallback, and accuracy improving with more title input. No contradiction with annotations.

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 well-structured with a clear opening sentence, an important note, and a bulleted list of use cases. It is not overly long, but the IMPORTANT section could be slightly more 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, output schema present), the description covers the main behavior, return value, and use cases effectively. The mention of 'best match information' in returns is adequate without duplicating the output schema.

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. It briefly explains both parameters: 'query: Title to search for (can be exact or partial)' and 'collection_id: Optional collection to limit search.' This adds basic meaning but lacks detail on format or constraints.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Locates a document ID by searching for its title.' It also explains the matching behavior (exact then partial), which distinguishes it from sibling search tools like 'search_documents' or 'read_document'.

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?

The description explicitly lists four use cases for when to use the tool, such as finding an ID when only the title is known or verifying existence. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance but provides clear context for appropriate usage.

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