Read an entry

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description's added value is the return-content inventory, which is genuinely useful given there is no output schema, but it says nothing about behavior on a missing entry or about lookup resolution.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the key framing 'The full entry', with no filler. The comma-separated inventory is dense but each item earns its place by telling the agent what comes back.

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, describing the returned fields is exactly the right compensation, and the annotations cover the safety profile. The only gap is that it doesn't tell the agent how to obtain a valid entry reference (e.g. via search_radar) or what happens when the entry is not found.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents that the entry parameter accepts an ID (IR-028), a number (28) or a title. The description adds no further meaning about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with 'The full entry' and enumerates the components returned (judgement, conditions, test, failure mode, examples, owner, related judgements, sources), which clearly marks this as a full-detail fetch rather than a search. It never states an explicit verb like 'retrieve', relying on the title for the action, but the resource and scope are unambiguous.

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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as search_radar (to find an entry) or list_judgements. The phrase 'the full entry' hints at a detail-vs-list distinction, but the agent must infer that on its own.

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