Read entry text

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint, the description discloses behavior the agent could not otherwise know: the tool is disabled by default, depends on a person-enabled full-text access setting, and every read is logged and surfaced to the user. That privacy/audit context is exactly the kind of thing that should change agent behavior before calling.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then the gating condition, then the usage restriction. No filler and nothing redundant.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, opt-in gating, audit logging, and usage restriction. An agent has everything needed to decide whether to call it and how to obtain the id.

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 lone 'id' parameter has no description, only a UUID pattern. The description compensates by explaining the id's provenance ('from list_entries'), which is the main thing an agent needs to supply a valid value; it stops short of describing the failure mode for malformed or unknown ids.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Full text of one journal entry') and ties it to the sibling that produces its input ('by id from list_entries'), so it is immediately distinguishable from list_entries and the other 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 gives an explicit selection rule ('Only use it when the person asks about a specific entry') and points to list_entries as the source of ids, which implicitly excludes bulk/listing use. It does not spell out fallback behavior when the person asks about an entry without having opted in, but the guidance is otherwise clear.

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