op3_resolve_show

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world behavior, so the bar is lower; the description nonetheless adds real context by disclosing that the tool reports which identifier kind it recognized and that failure implies an absent OP3 prefix. It doesn't discuss rate limits or auth, but those are unlikely to matter for a public resolver.

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, front-loaded with the core transformation, followed by accepted inputs and the failure interpretation. Every sentence carries distinct, actionable information with no filler.

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 one-parameter resolver with no output schema, the description plus schema covers input forms, success semantics ('reports which kind it recognized'), and the failure case. Nothing needed to invoke or interpret the call is missing.

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 parameter's schema already enumerates the uuid, podcast:guid, and RSS URL forms with formatting detail. The description adds only the note that a plain feed URL is accepted, so it largely restates 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 and resource ('Turn any podcast identifier into an OP3 show uuid') and explicitly positions itself relative to siblings: 'the uuid every other tool wants' and 'Use this first.' The three accepted identifier forms are enumerated, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool consumes or produces.

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 when-to-use directive ('Use this first when you have a feed URL and need the uuid every other tool wants') and even explains the failure branch: if resolution fails, the feed likely has no OP3 prefix and OP3 has no data. This tells the agent both when to call it and how to interpret a negative result.

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