Look up filter ids

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds real behavioral detail beyond them: return shape (items with `id` and name), that approver/executor/subject also carry `count`, and that those kinds are paged by 20. It does not disclose page limits for the unpaged kinds (type/status/list) or what an empty honest query returns precisely.

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-loaded with the core purpose, then return shape, then a worked example. Every sentence carries information and there is no filler, though the enumeration of kinds slightly duplicates the schema's enum list.

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 takes on the burden of describing returns and does so (id, name, count, 20-per-page). An agent has enough to call it correctly, though the differing paging behavior across kinds and the query-matching semantics are only partially covered.

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 100% and each enum value plus page/query is already documented with Persian glosses in the schema. The description's example for kind='approver' adds a little applied meaning, but mostly restates the paging behavior already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource ('find the ids that qv_search filters take') and enumerates exactly which filter dimensions it resolves. It explicitly ties itself to sibling qv_search, so an agent can distinguish lookup from search without opening either schema.

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 makes the use case clear: resolve a human name (e.g. 'مجلس') into an id to pass as approver_id to qv_search. It gives a concrete example, but offers no explicit when-not-to-use or guidance on which kind to pick versus calling qv_search directly with a raw query.

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