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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful context about the returned data (raw dataset columns, French names), but it does not disclose error behavior, response shape, or potential edge cases. This is acceptable but not exceptional given the annotation coverage.

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 a single, well-structured sentence. It leads with the core action and resource, then provides a parenthetical with concrete field examples. Every word adds value, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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, single-parameter, read-only tool, the description is largely sufficient: it names the input, the output nature, and clarifies the target resource. It does not mention possible errors or how to find the correct entry_id, but given the sibling set and the tool's low complexity, this is a minor gap.

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?

The description only says 'by id', which is essentially a restatement of the parameter name entry_id. It does not explain how the ID is obtained, whether it is the internal database ID or a document ID, or what constraints apply beyond the schema's integer type. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but adds minimal semantic value.

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 clearly states the tool's action ('Get'), the resource ('full details of an index entry'), and the lookup method ('by id'). It also gives concrete examples of returned fields (Titre, Prénom, Coordonnées), which distinguishes it from sibling get_* tools that target articles, documents, or references.

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 'by id' indicates the tool is used when the agent has a specific index entry ID and needs detailed information. It provides clear context for when to invoke the tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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