reverse_get_entry_detail

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds a useful prerequisite and clarifies single-entry scope, but it never explicitly states whether this is a read-only operation or whether any state is affected; the 'get' wording implies it but does not confirm it.

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?

Two short sentences, with the core purpose first and the usage constraint second. There is no filler or irrelevant detail.

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 one-parameter detail getter with an output schema, the description supplies the prerequisite and the non-bulk scope; nothing else is needed to invoke it correctly. The 'imported entry' phrasing also separates it from traffic/live-entry tools.

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 0% and the description never mentions entry_id by name, format, or expected source. 'One imported entry' and 'candidate selection' imply the ID identifies a previously imported candidate, but this is too indirect to compensate for the schema gap.

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 ('canonical detail view for one imported entry'), and explicitly scopes it to a single entry rather than bulk browsing. This clearly separates it from list-style siblings like reverse_query_entries.

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?

'Use after candidate selection' gives a clear trigger condition, and 'this is not a bulk-browsing endpoint' gives an explicit exclusion. It stops short of naming a specific alternative tool for bulk browsing, so the routing is strong but not fully explicit.

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