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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add useful value beyond that: it discloses that returned fields are raw dataset columns with French labels (Titre, Prénom, Coordonnées), which sets expectations for the response shape. It says nothing about what happens for a missing/invalid id or about result size.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with the core action first and the parenthetical detail after; every clause carries information. No filler or redundancy.

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 partially compensates by previewing the returned columns and their French naming. However, it omits the id's provenance, error behavior for unknown ids, and whether the entry is tied to a specific corpus/dataset — gaps an agent will hit in practice.

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 carry the parameter meaning, and it only says 'by id'. That identifies the key as an identifier but does not clarify type (integer), format, or where the id is obtained. Minimal compensation for a single required parameter.

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 ("Get full details of an index entry") and the lookup key (by id), which distinguishes it from the search/list siblings. It does not explicitly name search_index as its companion, but the singular 'entry' vs. search framing is clear enough to separate them.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this instead of search_index or explore_corpus, and no guidance on where a valid entry_id comes from. The agent must infer that this is a follow-up hydration call after an index search. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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