gold402_get_entry

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

The description discloses the matching behavior (exact then partial) and lists return fields. Annotations already provide safety hints (read-only, idempotent), so the description adds meaningful behavioral detail without redundancy.

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 two concise sentences, free of fluff, and clearly structured. It communicates purpose and output without unnecessary 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?

Given the low complexity (single entry fetch) and presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the return content by listing all key fields (URL, description, shelf, date first listed, permanent listing page). No gaps 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?

Both parameters have schema descriptions, and the tool description enriches the 'name' parameter by explaining the exact/partial matching semantics. The response_format parameter is adequately described in the schema, so no additional clarification is needed.

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 fetches a single gold-402 entry by name, with exact match preferred and fallback to partial. This precisely defines the action and distinguishes from search-oriented siblings.

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?

It explicitly indicates when to use: to retrieve a single entry by name. While it doesn't contrast with sibling tools like gold402_search, the scope is unambiguous enough for the agent to select appropriately.

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