Map old place ids

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower; the description adds genuine value by naming the response buckets (mapping, unchanged, unverified) and clarifying what each means. It does not state what happens for ids absent from all three buckets, which is a minor gap.

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?

Front-loads the purpose in one sentence, then the trigger condition, then the return-taxonomy detail. Every clause carries information and nothing is repeated.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by enumerating the three result categories and flagging the district limitation. Combined with the 100%-covered input schema, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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 single `ids` parameter is fully described in the schema ('Old district/city ids saved from earlier Divar data'). The description echoes this framing without adding format, ordering, or batching semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (convert) and resource (old Divar place ids → current ones), with the reason (Divar merged and renumbered places). An agent can immediately distinguish this id-remapping utility from lookup siblings like dv_districts or dv_place_search.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition — 'when an id from an old link or saved data returns nothing' — and routes the district-checking case to the named alternative dv_districts. Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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