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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add some return-content context ('one entry with notes and cross-links'), and 'get' implies a read operation, but it does not disclose error behavior, authentication needs, or what happens when the id is not found.

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 very short and free of filler, but 'CuNi exactness' is cryptic and the em-dash construction sacrifices clarity for brevity. It is concise, not necessarily clear.

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?

This is a single-parameter get tool with no annotations and no output schema, so the description must explain the resource, the parameter, and the return shape. It mentions 'one entry with notes and cross-links', but it does not describe what CuNi is, how the id should be used, or what error or empty responses look like.

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% and the description does not meaningfully explain the required 'id' parameter. The word 'exactness' hints at exact matching, but the description does not compensate for the bare schema, which only declares 'id' as a string with no further semantics.

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 communicates that this tool returns a single CuNi entry, which aligns with the 'get' name and distinguishes it from cuni_search. It mentions specific result content ('notes and cross-links'), but it lacks an explicit verb such as 'retrieves' or 'fetches', so it stops short of a fully specified purpose.

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 phrase 'one entry' implies use for exact, single-record retrieval by id, contrasting with the sibling search tool. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of requiring an id, and no exclusions.

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