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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to re-state safety. It adds that directory entries can be users, teams, or devices, which is useful context. It does not describe what happens when an entry is not found, permission requirements, or the shape of the returned entry.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter retrieval tool.

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 getter with annotations covering read-only safety, the description is minimally adequate: an agent knows to supply an entry id and expects one directory entry back. It is missing usage boundaries against sibling tools and any error/not-found context, leaving clear gaps.

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% for entryId, so the description must compensate. It only says the lookup is 'by entry id,' which essentially restates the parameter name and does not explain format, source, or whether entryId corresponds to user/team/device identifiers.

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 states a specific verb (Get), a specific resource (one directory entry), and enumerates the entry types (user, team, or device). This distinguishes it from a bulk list operation, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling getters like spokephone_get_user or spokephone_get_phonebook_contact.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'by entry id' — the tool is for retrieving a single entry when its id is known. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing to alternatives such as spokephone_list_directory or type-specific getters.

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