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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that an entry includes notes, price, and links, which hints at the return payload, but it says nothing about read-only guarantees, error behavior, missing IDs, authentication, or response shape. The 'get' in the tool name implies a safe read, but that is not from the description.

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?

The description is extremely short with no filler words, and the em-dash structure front-loads the resource name. However, it is a sentence fragment rather than a complete instruction, and the brevity sacrifices essential information, making it more under-specified than genuinely concise.

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 get-by-id tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should at least state that it fetches the entry matching the `id` and describe the returned structure. It only says 'one entry with notes, price, and links', which is incomplete: no mention of the ID parameter's role, not-found behavior, or usage context.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented `id` parameter. It never explicitly connects `id` to the 'one entry' concept, nor does it state that `id` selects which entry to retrieve. The only parameter is effectively undocumented.

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 identifies the resource (a CuNi entry) and mentions its content fields (notes, price, links), and the 'one entry' phrasing implies single-record retrieval. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'fetch', and does not clearly distinguish itself from cuni_search beyond implying a single entry rather than a search result.

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 cuni_search or any other sibling. It does not mention that an ID is needed to fetch a specific entry, nor does it indicate when to prefer the search alternative. The only hint is the required `id` parameter in the schema, which is outside the description.

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