ILG Quick Pick — internal-link rules + examples (PI 6.3.034/035), payload inlined

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by specifying that the tool returns records with inlined content (v7 payload contract) and that the inline parameter controls metadata-only (v6 shape). This covers behavioral nuances beyond 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?

Two sentences, no fluff. The first sentence serves as a title repetition, the second adds key behavior. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the tool's identity.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and well-covered annotations, the description is largely complete. It explains the payload contract and versioning. However, it does not mention the output schema or any pagination details, which is acceptable given 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?

The input schema covers the single parameter with 100% description coverage, stating that false yields metadata-only. The description reinforces this by noting v7 vs v6 payload contracts, adding minor context. Since schema already does the work, score is at baseline.

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 returns records with inlined content for internal-link rules and examples. The title reinforces the 'quick pick' nature, making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling preset tools, leaving room for ambiguity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 19 sibling tools including other presets, the lack of contextual usage hints or exclusions makes it difficult for an AI agent to choose correctly without external knowledge.

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