Get compendium entry in full

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

Annotations already establish read-only and non-destructive behavior, so the description adds value beyond them by disclosing two important runtime behaviors: credentials are removed from the returned data, and a missing compendium or entry is explicitly reported as such. This gives the agent useful expectations about data sanitization and error reporting.

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 a single focused sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then lists the returned content. The list is long but purposeful, since it effectively substitutes for an output schema. It contains no filler or repetition of the title beyond the necessary framing.

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, the description compensates well by enumerating exactly what the agent receives: document metadata, system data, contained items, effects, summary, and full document. It also covers edge behavior for missing resources and credential removal, making it sufficiently complete for safe invocation.

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 are fully documented in the input schema with simple descriptions ('Id of the compendium', 'Id of the entry in it'), so the schema carries the burden. The tool description does not add parameter-level guidance, but it also does not need to because the parameters are self-explanatory and coverage is 100%.

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 the specific operation and resource: a single compendium entry retrieved in full, for any document type. The enumerated payload contents (name, type, compendium label, description, system data, contained items, effects, summary, full document) makes the scope concrete and distinguishes it from narrower siblings like get-compendium-item.

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 phrase 'before copying it into the world' gives a clear intended use case, and the mention of 'everything needed' implies this is the retrieval-for-copy tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives such as get-compendium-item or list-compendium-entries, nor does it state any exclusions.

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