Get compendium item

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

The read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive annotations already convey the safety profile; the description adds transparency about the output shape and the compact-mode cutoff. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 focused sentence front-loads the main purpose, then efficiently covers the output fields and the compact alternative. No filler is present and every clause contributes useful information.

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 does a good job explaining what a full and a compact response contain. It could go further by clarifying how it differs from get-compendium-entry-full or what errors may occur, but for a read-only lookup the essentials are present.

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%, so the schema already documents itemId, packId, and compact. The description mostly restates the compact flag behavior without adding new parameter-level meaning, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Retrieve one compendium entry') and enumerates the returned fields for both full and compact modes. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool get-compendium-entry-full, which could be confused with it.

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 gives clear context for choosing the compact form: it is 'enough to decide between candidates.' It does not, however, mention alternative tools or explicitly state when to prefer this tool over a sibling such as get-compendium-entry-full.

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