op3_resolve_show

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

Annotations already declare the operation safe and idempotent, and the description adds valuable behavior beyond that: it reports which identifier kind was recognized, accepts and encodes feed URLs automatically, and interprets failure as the feed lacking an OP3 prefix (meaning OP3 has no data). This gives the agent actionable expectations about behavior and failure semantics.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: purpose first, accepted inputs second, usage context and failure interpretation last. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important scoping information is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter, read-only resolution tool with rich annotations, the description covers input varieties, the output concept (uuid plus recognized kind), and the meaning of failure. No output schema exists, but the description still gives the agent enough to call the tool and interpret the result 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?

The schema already covers the single parameter fully with 100% coverage, including accepted formats and URL encoding, so the description does not need to add parameter detail. The description reinforces the input types but does not provide new semantic information beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Turn any podcast identifier into an OP3 show uuid') and enumerates the accepted input formats. It also positions the tool as the first step before other OP3 tools, distinguishing it from siblings that consume a resolved UUID.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use this first when you have a feed URL and need the uuid every other tool wants') and explains what a failure means. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, such as when you already have the OP3 uuid, so it stops short of a full exclusion rule.

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