pennylane_get_entry_line

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and idempotency profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing beyond that structured data, but with annotations carrying the burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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, efficient sentence that is front-loaded and free of waste. It is perhaps overly terse, but nothing is padding.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. For a simple single-id getter this is minimally adequate, but the lack of sibling disambiguation leaves a small 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single id parameter ('Identifiant unique de la ligne d'écriture'), so the schema fully documents the argument. The description adds no extra meaning such as format or sourcing of the id, giving the baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb (Récupère) and resource (le détail d'une ligne d'écriture comptable), so an agent knows this fetches a single entry line rather than the parent entry. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like pennylane_get_entry, pennylane_list_entry_lines, or pennylane_list_all_entry_lines, so it falls short of a 5.

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 description provides no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (e.g. list_entry_lines for retrieving many lines), and no prerequisites. Usage is only implied by the tool name and verb.

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